User:Tm670/sandbox
Journalism Source Protection and Privacy
[edit]Source protection and privacy for journalists and their sources have no formal protections with regards to their privacy mandated by law in the United States. The 1971 case Branzburg v. Hayes largely struck down the idea of reporter's privilege, which is an informal practice that protects communications between journalists and their sources.[1] However, the case did set precedent and further formed its existence in common law. Protecting sources and their privacy through in-person or digital communications comes with concerns for First and Fourth Amendment protections for news media and individual sources, but also calls into question the validity of their use in federal investigations and judicial systems. News media and their sources have expressed concern over government covertly accessing their private communications.[1] Technological developments such as encrypted messaging and emails continue to be made as a part of better news practices that protect a journalists' and sources' privacy.
Reporter's privilege
[edit]Many describe the media as a watchdog who provide public information as a form of public service. Their ability to report and speak to sources with confidence of source protection and privacy is part of a long-standing and informal practice of journalism ethics.[2] On the other hand, sources may also be more likely to speak to journalists with this shield. Unlike doctor-patient or lawyer-client confidentiality, reporters are not afforded a similar legal shield. Reporter's privilege or the lack thereof has been used by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies as an avenue to information about specific individuals or groups related to pending criminal investigations. [3]
Legal battles
[edit]The legal history of reporter's privilege and shield laws spans decades since formally being introduced in the court of law in the early 1970s. Outside of the court, various acts, policies, and regulations have taken place both in the government, public, and private sector that impact journalism and source relationships and practices.
Branzburg v. Hayes
[edit]The 1971 case of Branzburg v. Hayes did not legitimize protections for sources or establish privacy, but it helped introduce the concept of reporter's privilege into public discussion. Even if Branzburg, a Kentucky reporter, lost the battle and had to testify about his sources and story to a grand jury, his challenger in court laid the foundation and legal precedence.[4]
Tracy v. Missoula
[edit]A University of Montana student, Linda Tracy, was issued a subpoena for video she took of a violent encounter between police officers and a group of residents. The case, which was ultimately dismissed, involved attaining unedited footage of the encounter which part of was used in a documentary Linda Tracy made as for an undergraduate journalism class. Although she won the case, her status as a real journalist was called into question. Even with the victory, the court did not specifically address if protections and privacy extended to student journalist, but because of the nature of her intent and the project she could not be coerced to releasing the footage.[5] The case helped help further battles in student journalism and press freedoms at an educational level.
O'Connor v. Ortega
[edit]In the 1987 case, the court ruled that searching an employee's private workspace falls under the definition of a reasonable search since it is housed in a public company’s domain. The Ortega case demonstrates how the court views email as a tool of the public company that is given to an employee to use for work specific cases. Because of this, public employers virtually have the complete right to access those communications that are work related.
Edward Snowden
[edit]Former CIA employee Edward Snowden further impacted the relationship between journalism, sources, and privacy.His 2013 leaks of highly classified information ties into source protection. His revelation demonstrated privacy and surveillance operations and also exposed the access that network administrator have specifically to journalists emails and sources.[6] Surveillance by network administrators may include being able to view how many times a journalist or source visits a website per day, the information they are reading or viewing, and online applications they utilize.
Electronics Communications and Privacy Act
[edit]The Electronic Communications Privacy Act passed in 1986 and protects bank transactions, telephone digits, and other information. The act also encompasses what organizations must provide to law enforcement with a subpoena, such as name, address, durations of services used, type of device used, and source of payment. This is known as “required disclosure” policies. It later included provisions to prohibit access to stored electronic devices.[7]
Freedom of Information Act
[edit]The passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1977 gave the public access to all public documents in government. It also influenced news practices and gave journalists an avenue to more transparent and original information for their stories. The news media have highly utilized the Freedom of Information Act to acquire information for their system and has received and informal preference through the form of postal subsidies to receive the government documents.[8]
International cases
[edit]The case for source protection and privacy has taken to the international press, who in varying instances have also advocated for more formal protections of source protection and privacy.
Government surveillance technologies became of grave concern to journalists across the globe. In Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania unauthorized access to information by government entities were identified in several cases.[9] In those political regions, policies such as mandatory registration of pre-paid SIM mobile phone cards and government access to CCTV make hacking tools and surveillance a lot easier.
In Mexico, it is reported that the government there has spent $300 million during one year to surveil and gather information from the population with specific interest in journalists to get access to their texts, phone calls, and emails.[10] Even in Ethiopia, there are strategic state government sponsored and directed efforts to block communications for journalists working with or for U.S. News stations.[11]
News media practices
[edit]Privacy for journalists and protection of sources are being considered in a media organization's practices and structure. As technology progresses, there is a growing number of technical breaches as well in journalism organizations. With a shrinking news budget, individual journalists can be left with the responsibility of ensuring privacy and protection at an individual level. Though, news organizations are providing resources and a stronger IT department that handles instances of phishing, password sharing, use of information clouds on their infrastructure.[12]
Studies also found that in the U.S. 22.6% of stories in news print media relied on anonymous sources and 11.6% used first time sources. An additional 31.25% of sources were confidential in news reporting. There is also a rise in Public Relations and government media departments which serve as controls to information sharing within institutions and between news media.[13]
The growing use of social media has also presented varying ethical dilemmas for news managers and practitioners. A study found that only 13% of journalists has guidelines on how to use social media content and sources, especially on Twitter.[14] Over half of journalists use social media for their daily news gathering practices. Privacy is often as risk by using social media as a primary source because may cause the misuse of personal information posted on public platforms.
Technology
[edit]Emerging technologies have also been introduced to newsrooms as a response to privacy breaches and lack of protections for sources.
More traditional communications such as phone text messaging and email still embody concerns for privacy. Specifically, cases of phishing, where a hacker gains access to information through secretive links and downloads, continue to occur.[15] In one event, a cluster of 10,000 tweets that had hyperlinks containing malware as a part of a large scale phishing activity which targeted politicians and employees of government. 70% of people who received those links clicked on them and even family members of these officials were targeted. Phishing hacks can be hostile as it can take over WiFi networks and spread to those using that same network.[16] A computer hack through a phishing link can go unnoticed for years.
New technologies especially those that use end-to-end encryption are also being used in newsrooms. SecureDrop is one news innovation that provides protection and privacy for journalists and their sources. SecureDrop is an in-house system for media organizations and practicing journalists that uses cryptography that makes a text or content unreadable to everyone but its direct recipient..The technology came to be along with the formation of WikiLeaks and their unique submission system.[17]
More schools of journalism are also beginning to include data and source protection and privacy into their curriculum. Through training sessions and workshops involving new students and those already established in the industry, the concerns for data risks and security as well.[18]
The type of protection provided by technology can be understood in a link-ability or unlink-ability of a platform or medium. In essence, the information provided can be traced back to its origin or another point in the process or can it not be.[7]
Other technologies and practical applications also include:
Secure Drop
[edit]SecureDrop is an in-house system for media organizations and practicing journalists. The technology is in its infancy. The technology came to be along with the formation of WikiLeaks and their unique submission system. The system is heavily influenced and inspired by the leaking of Edward Snowden. Kevin Poulsen, a senior editor at Wired who is also a hacker, founded SecureDrop after noticing a gap between Assange’s WikiLeaks and the news practices of the time. The system provides virtually complete cover from infiltration through by protecting emails and texts. [19]
"Off the Record"
[edit]This safer option allows for encrypted and direct messaging that allows for the journalist to confirm the identity of the source they are speaking with as well. This is meant to provide an alternative to email and social media messaging apps. Even if you happen to lose the secure. Platforms include Pidgin, Adium, ChatSecure, Miranda, and Google Talk.[20]
Tails
[edit]This operating system takes privacy as a central approach. It operates through a USB memory stick that is designed or a DVD that does not leave marks on devices it is used on. It provides high security especially for larger programs that need more protection in news media information gathering.[21]
Two-step verification
[edit]This function utilizes multiple online services to access a two-step feature to log into an account. Several companies employ this verification system such as G-mail, Twitter, Drop Box, and even some school university portals.[22]
The Onion Router (TOR)
[edit]The Onion Router keeps hidden the user's internet usage and the accompanying traffic on the websites they visit. While it does not offer complete coverage, it is still widely used by legal authorities and political activists. Though there are complaints on the speed of the system, there is growing use of it by journalists due to the privacy coverage it provides while using the system.[23]
Password managers
[edit]These applications allow users to collect and keep their various passwords in a safe digital locale. By using one central key that accesses all the information, the user is able to log in to their profiles on different platforms directly and avoid any malware that targets password input.[6]
VPN
[edit]Using a virtual private network can allow communication through an encrypted stream of information. This may be provided by a journalism company or through commercial providers. It provides protection from potentially dangerous Web providers.[7]
Public interest
[edit]Public debate around the issue of journalism source protection and privacy includes discussion of journalism, privacy, and surveillance in the name of public interest. Journalists often referred to as watchdogs of society may require that their sources be protected in order to have the best reporting.[24] Concern for protections for journalists and their sources include an interest in having a strong and independent press that serves as a check on power and corruption. Others may see concealed information gathering as a means to pedal false or manufactured narratives and would prefer to know the source as a means of assigning credibility.
The use of the term journalist has also come into consideration by those who advocate for or against source protection and privacy. With a changing media landscape and more people able to produce and consume media, protections for published works can apply across all forms of media and not just traditional outlets. Defining who is a journalist or what is journalism ensures that there are appropriate protections, but may also risk acting as a license or censor to produce information.[25]
Popular Culture
[edit]Both new and old cinema have take interest in dramatizing some of the boldest and bravest real-life journalistic investigations as adaptations for the big screen.
- Citizen Kane - This 1941 drama in the U.S. tells the story of a newspaper tycoon who investigates his last dying words -- a tale of the power and control one might embody. It portrays the struggle of the print industry while he conducts his own investigations and sensationalistic coverage. [26]
- All the President's Men - This 1976 film tells the story of two Washington Post reporter's who unveiled the secrets of President Nixon and the Watergate scandal. [27]
- The Insider - This 1999 film inspired by a real CBS 60 Minutes expose uncovers the practices of a big tobacco company and their efforts to make cigarettes more addicting. [27]
- Spotlight - Inspired by the true story of reporters at the Boston Globe, this 2015 crime and drama film chronicles the uncovering of a massive Church abuse scandal.[28]
See also
[edit]Freedom of Information Act (United States)
Barack Obama on mass surveillance
Shield laws in the United States
Week 11 Peer Review
[edit]Tm670 Response
Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. I will be sure to double check all the hyperlinks you sent and make sure that they all work. I will also continue to see what movies I can add to the popular culture section. Also, I will begin to clearly explain each of the technologies that I list and where and how users can make use of them. I will also consider changing wording on statements that provide specific numbers or figures because of the great points you mentioned. Again, I appreciate the time and feedback. Looking forward to sharing the main space with you.
QuixoticWindmills
I really like your article, it's clear you did a lot of research and the writing is very well done. You hyperlink enough that I can get a grasp of other concepts and I appreciate your popular cultures section. One piece of feedback I would suggest is clarifying what exactly some of these technologies are; I'm not entirely sure I understand if "off the record" is an app or a site or some other software. I would also be careful about citing specific numbers and percentages from studies; I personally prefer to say things like "a majority" or "most", but I think this is up to personal preference. To me, it helps reduce reliance on the validity of one specific study. You may may also want to clarify in your legal section that all of those are US-centric (except for the international section); maybe have two sections for US and international, and then have subsections within. Other than these (which are pretty much personal preference honestly) I think your article looks set for main space!
Week 10 Peer Review
[edit]Tm670 response
Thank you so much for your feedback. I truly appreciate the time you put into your peer review. I will be sure to further define and detail what source protection and privacy is. Additionally, I will examine how restructuring my sections might help the flow and encyclopedic tone of my article. Specifically I think I will look into how the international cases might blend better with legal battles. Regarding typos and grammar, I will continue to scan and make those copy-edit changes. Thanks for catching some specific errors and I have begun to work on correcting them. I am looking forward to uploading the the main space in the near future!
By King666Field
I think I cannot say much on your work, since I think it's great and I do not have so many criticisms. I would say it's excellent overall and each section has a variety of contents and ideas and I really enjoy when reading it! The only things that I might say are that first I don't know if you can find a definition of the term source protection and privacy and second I think it might be great to change the order of sections, for example, putting legal battles and international cases together, and also mention the inner relations between those sections. I find some typos during the page, which are in:
- The first sentence of technology section, "have also" typed twice
- The second sentence of the fifth paragraph of tech section, which should be an interrogative sentence?
- Some small punctuation errors appear in several places
Another thing is that the hyperlink to the word "phishing" can also be added to the News Media Practice since it appears first.
Overall, I really like it and I think it's a great final draft!
Week 9 Peer Review
[edit]By Starshine 44
I like how you have broken up your article into many smaller bites with headings. It makes it feel organized and less intimidating. There are a few instances of two spaces rather than one after a citation, or a space between the citation and the word, but other than those few inconsistencies, and a few missing commas or extra periods, I don't see any major issues like spelling or grammar. It is well written. I like the flow of the information; it almost tells a story, and it is enjoyable and interesting to read. I'm sorry I do not have many criticisms here. You're doing a great job!
Week 8 Peer Review
[edit]Tm670 Response:
Thank you both for your feedback. I will be sure to not assume and further define what source protection and privacy is. I will add a definition on what current protections there are to include what it is and not only what is is not. I will also do another copy-edit to be sure I avoid grammatical errors. With new developments with my article though, I will also see to it that I do not impact the other article's work and their definitions and lead section. This will be an interesting process, but your feedback also has great suggestions that are applicable to the articles I will be merging.
#1 Thomas,
Great job on your Wikipedia article this week!
Your article has a clear structure, balanced and substantial coverage of topics, neutral coverage, and utilizes reliable sources. My main concern is that you didn’t explicitly define source protection and privacy in your lead section, so I was a little confused as to what it is. You say that there aren’t protections for journalists and their sources, but you don’t define what the protections are in a sentence or two at the beginning of the article. I also noticed under the subtitle “off the record” there’s a sentence that says “even if you have to lose the secure” which doesn’t make sense. Other than that, I thought your article was well written and displays a comprehensive understanding of source protection and privacy.
#2 Peer review by Travelqueen27:
[edit]Your article is coming along great! It is very detailed and well written. I do have the same concern as the above peer review which is that Source protection and privacy is not clearly defined in the lead section. I would suggest to define that in the first sentence of your lead section and also define what types of sources you are referring to like is it their book sources or a person who's the source? It seems you are referring to sources as people so I would define that more clearly.
Week 6 - Peer Review Response
[edit]Thank you for your feedback and time. I just went through and made all the copyedit suggestions. I will also begin to add more subsections to my “Technology” section of the article as I complete the remaining of my annotations. I will also continue to strive for a more encyclopedic tone in my writing and ensure all sources are credited appropriately.
Week 5 - Outline: Source Protection and Privacy
[edit]Journalists and their sources have no formal protections with regards to their privacy mandated by law in the United States. The 1971 case Branzburg v. Hayes largely struck down the idea of "reporter's privilege," which is an informal practice that protects communications between journalists and their sources.[1] However, the case did set precedent and further formed its existence in common law. Protecting sources and their privacy through in-person or digital communications comes with concerns for First and Fourth Amendment protections for news media and individual sources, but also calls into question the validity of their use in federal investigations and judicial systems. News media and their sources have expressed concern over government covertly accessing their private communications.[1] Technological developments such as encrypted messaging and emails continue to be made as a part of better news practices that protect a journalist's and source's privacy.
Reporter's Privilege
[edit]-Precedent for source confidentiality
-Use of informal protections
-Relation to FBI and other agencies
Legal Cases
[edit]-Expand Branzburg v. Hayes
- Snowden
- Freedom of Information Act
News Media Practices
[edit]- Include Organizational Computer Security and Privacy Concerns
Technology
[edit]- Lay foundation for use of new and emerging tech
- Explain traditional violations of protection and privacy (through email, phones, IT)
- New technological concerns (apps, locations, etc.)
-Response (inventions of new tech to combat violations)/ k-anonymity)
International Cases
[edit]- Bulgaria, Poland, Romania
-Across the board government surveillance
Public Interest
[edit]- Public debate over public interest for good journalism versus manufactured storytelling. Privacy impacts both of these things.
- Need for Watchdogs and quality reporting
*****Note: Possible links to related Wikipedia pages:
Freedom of Information Act (United States)
Barack Obama on mass surveillance
Shield laws in the United States
My New Article - Source Protection and Privacy in Journalism
[edit]I am very excited about this new article topic. As an aspiring journalist, I am eager to enter this research world and uncover what privacy looks like for confidential sources and practicing media makers. I hope to provide the history, modern application, and public concern on the matter in the article. I hope to add more information about the information gathering systems and technologies used between sources and journalists.
A possible outline might look like
- (Intro) What is Source Protection and Privacy
-History of Confidential Sourcing
-Reporter's Privilege and Legal Scope
-Public Interest and Concern
- Modern Technology and Practice
- Works Cited
Article Evaluation #1 - Privacy + Information Privacy
[edit]Most of the information in the article is relevant to the article topic. One thing that distracted me was the inclusion of the Safe Harbor program and passenger name record. While it is related to the topic it seemed to be an abrupt transition after the discussion on types of information. Though, it may be useful to demonstrate the international dynamics at play with regards to privacy. one thing that could be improved is contrasting information privacy across different nations as the article only mentions it briefly in its section section, "Legality."
The article seems to have a biased tone with a particular position. One claim that struck me as slanted is the section under "Improving privacy through individualization." In this section, they offer a statement on how computer privacy can be improved followed by a solution from researchers. Other claims on the page provide scholarly references at least once per paragraph.
The article is part of the WikiProject for Computing, Internet, and Mass surveillance and is given a rating of "C High." Some conversation in the talk page address some biased claims in the article such as "information should be free." Additionally, other discussions suggest to further contextualize the page with international examples. Other discussion includes how to best categorize the article between different names such as "Information security" versus "Information privacy."
Article Evaluation #2 - Privacy + Google Street View privacy concerns
[edit]Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. One thing that I found distracting was how the public concerns were discussed interchangeably with the legal concerns of Google Street view. The way it was written made it seem that the public concern was equal to legal concerns, when they may be very separate issues of different magnitudes. The information provided all falls within the past decade, which is relatively recent with the advent of the Google Street View capabilities. I think the public concern conversation could be better distinguished from the legal concerns. While the article spends a lot of text talking about legal implications, it mentions public concerns briefly which blurs the lines between the two for me.
The article appears to be critical of Google Street View -- though it is entitled "Google Street View Privacy Concerns." Naturally, these concerns are not in support of Google Street View. The article seems to provide a balanced amount of information about the U.S., Europe, and other countries that are impacted by Google Street View. I think a viewpoint that is underrepresented is the "every day citizen" point of view. There is heavy legal language and concerns of nations and countries, but little mention of ways in which families and citizens are affected.
A vast amount of the sources are news and popular media. However, there is inclusion of official government and ministry reports from countries who are debating the use of Google Street View. The links to support the claims in the article and also help provide more context for each country's privacy concerns. This article does have appropriate and reliable sources that backs up every statement in the page.
Conversations on the talk page range from clarification on technical terms to fixing links that did not work before. One person even asks for clarification on a foreign country's experience with Google technology. The article is rated as "B-class, Low importance" and is a part of the WikiProject for Internet, Maps, and Google. The conversation may be similar to one we may have in class. It relies on credible sources and also touches on the social implications of technology. It explicitly centers the "concerns" regarding the technology, and provides several global experiences.
- ^ a b c d Abramowicz, David. 2008. “Calculating the Public Interest in Protecting Journalists' Confidential Sources.” Columbia Journalism Review 108(8):1949–90. Retrieved March 1, 2019 (www.jstor.org/stable/40041814)
- ^ Koningisor, Christina. 2018. “The De Facto Reporter’s Privilege.” Yale Law Journal 5:11–76. Retrieved March 1, 2019 (libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglt&AN=edsgcl.537031664&site=eds-live.)
- ^ Koningisor, Christina. 2018. “The De Facto Reporter’s Privilege.” Yale Law Journal 5:11–76. Retrieved March 1, 2019 (libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglt&AN=edsgcl.537031664&site=eds-live.)
- ^ Abramowicz, David. 2008. “Calculating the Public Interest in Protecting Journalists' Confidential Sources.” Columbia Journalism Review 108(8):1949–90. Retrieved March 1, 2019 (www.jstor.org/stable/40041814).
- ^ Dee, Juliet Lushbough. 2010. Free Speech Yearbook: The Under Privileged Journalism Students. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association. Retrieved (https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=67051538&site=eds-live).
- ^ a b Kleberg, C. F. (2015), The Death of Source Protection? Protecting Journalists’ Source in a Post-Snowden Age, London: LSE Polis. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/Death-of-Source-Protection-Carl-Fridh-Kleberg.pdf
- ^ a b c McGregor, Susan. 2014. “DIGITAL SECURITY AND SOURCE PROTECTION FOR JOURNALISTS.” Tow Center for Digital Journalism A Tow/Knight.pp. 03–88. Retrieved (https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D89P3D4M).
- ^ Carroll, Erin C. 2015. “Protecting the Watchdog: Using the Freedom of Information Act to Preference the Press.” SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved (libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=116432088&site=eds-live.).
- ^ Glowacka, Dorota, Konrad Siemaszko, Joanna Smtek, and Zuzanna Warso. 2018. “Protecting Journalistic Sources against Contemporary Means of Surveillance.” Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook16(1):97–111 Retrieved from https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3df3h%26AN%3d130065096%26site%3deds-live
- ^ Silkie and Arjen Kamphuis. 2015. “Information Security for Journalists.” Centre for Investigative Journalism 1(21). Pp 1-97. Retrieved (https://files.gendo.ch/Books/InfoSec_for_Journalists_V1.21.pdf).
- ^ Silkie and Arjen Kamphuis. 2015. “Information Security for Journalists.” Centre for Investigative Journalism 1(21). Pp 1-97. Retrieved (https://files.gendo.ch/Books/InfoSec_for_Journalists_V1.21.pdf).
- ^ Mcgregor, Susan E., Franziska Roesner, and Kelly Caine. 2016. “Individual versus Organizational Computer Security and Privacy Concerns in Journalism.” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2016(4):418–35. Retrieved (https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/popets.2016.2016.issue-4/popets-2016-0048/popets-2016-0048.pdf).
- ^ Lashmar, Paul. 2017.“No More Sources?” Journalism Practice, vol. 11. p. 665. EBSCOhost, libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedb%26AN%3d123913717%26site%3deds-live.
- ^ JC Suárez Villegas, J Cruz Álvarez (2016): “The ethical dilemmas of using social networks as information sources. Analysis of the opinion of journalists from three countries”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, pp. 66 to 84. http://www.revistalatinacs.org/071/paper/1084/04en.html DOI: 10.4185/RLCS-2016-1084en
- ^ Bossetta, Michael. 2018. “THE WEAPONIZATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA: SPEAR PHISHING AND CYBERATTACKS ON DEMOCRACY.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1.5, pp. 97–106. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26508123. Retrieved (http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=a7c47db6-4668-49c5-82f2-058d
- ^ Bossetta, Michael. 2018. “THE WEAPONIZATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA: SPEAR PHISHING AND CYBERATTACKS ON DEMOCRACY.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1.5, pp. 97–106. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26508123. Retrieved (http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=a7c47db6-4668-49c5-82f2-058d
- ^ Berret, Charles. 2016. “How SecureDrop Helps CPJ Protect Journalists.” Tow Center for Digital Journalism A Tow/Knight . pp. 03-77 Retrieved (https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D84178B2).
- ^ Kleberg, C. F. (2015), The Death of Source Protection? Protecting Journalists’ Source in a Post-Snowden Age, London: LSE Polis. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/Death-of-Source-Protection-Carl-Fridh-Kleberg.pdf
- ^ Berret, Charles. 2016. “How SecureDrop Helps CPJ Protect Journalists.” Tow Center for Digital Journalism A Tow/Knight . pp. 03-77 Retrieved (https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D84178B2).
- ^ Kleberg, C. F. (2015), The Death of Source Protection? Protecting Journalists’ Source in a Post-Snowden Age, London: LSE Polis. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/Death-of-Source-Protection-Carl-Fridh-Kleberg.pdf
- ^ Kleberg, C. F. (2015), The Death of Source Protection? Protecting Journalists’ Source in a Post-Snowden Age, London: LSE Polis. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/Death-of-Source-Protection-Carl-Fridh-Kleberg.pdf
- ^ Kleberg, C. F. (2015), The Death of Source Protection? Protecting Journalists’ Source in a Post-Snowden Age, London: LSE Polis. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/Death-of-Source-Protection-Carl-Fridh-Kleberg.pdf
- ^ Kleberg, C. F. (2015), The Death of Source Protection? Protecting Journalists’ Source in a Post-Snowden Age, London: LSE Polis. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/Death-of-Source-Protection-Carl-Fridh-Kleberg.pdf
- ^ Kitrosser, Heidi. 2015. “Leak Prosecutions and the First Amendment: New Developments and a Closer Look at the Feasibility of Protecting Leakers.” William and Mary Law Review 4:12–47. Retrieved (libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglt&AN=edsgcl.414134070&site=eds-live.).
- ^ Apelis, Markus. 2008. FIT TO PRINT? CONSEQUENCES OF IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL REPORTER'S PRIVILEGE . Vol. 58. 4th ed. Case Western Reserve Law Review. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=47879366&site=eds-live&authtype=ip,guest&custid=s1226370&groupid=main&profile=eds
- ^ "The Best Journalism Movies". Complex. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
- ^ a b "The 10 best journalism movies (including Steven Spielberg's 'The Post'), ranked". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2019-04-11.
- ^ "10 Best - Investigative Journalism". IMDb. Retrieved 2019-04-11.