|
How journalists can protect their sources amidst press freedom concerns
By Holly Butcher Grant
On Wednesday, FBI agents searched the home of a Washington Post reporter during an investigation into the disclosure of classified information, sparking significant press freedom concerns across the industry and country.
As news outlets like the New York Times noted, it is “exceedingly rare” for federal agents to search a journalist’s home. Under the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, journalists are generally safe from search warrants for their work product or documentary materials — unless they are suspected of committing a crime related to them.
In this instance, reporter Hannah Natanson was not a target of the investigation; FBI agents were seeking information related to a government contractor. As the Post's “federal government whisperer,” Natanson covers how the Trump administration is reshaping the federal government, interviewing more than a thousand sources comprising current or former federal employees.
Press freedom advocates worry that this raid will have a chilling effect on accountability reporting and might silence whistleblowers. (Go deeper: See how government officials are using the Espionage Act to target leakers and whistleblowers, and what journalists can do.)
To help navigate these press freedom concerns, the Institute reached out to two journalists with extensive experience covering the government. Here are their tips for protecting sources in this political climate.
Miranda Spivack, investigative journalist and author:
“Keep sensitive documents, interview information, transcripts, and contact information offline. Consider using a thumb drive to store this info and then keep that out of your home and office — but have a quick way to get access when needed.
Think hard about what you are saying on social media before posting. Draft a post and then wait for 30 minutes, if possible, so you have time to think through the risks. Also, remember to regularly delete your browsing history.
For messaging, use Signal, whose metadata retention is relatively limited. And be sure that your sources understand you will do all you can to protect them, but that they still could be at risk. Ask them how they might handle a breach of confidentiality, due to an encounter like what happened to Natanson.”
Steve Herman, executive director of the Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation; assistant professor of practice in the School of Journalism & New Media at the University of Mississippi; and former chief national correspondent at Voice of America:
“Having reported from dozens of countries with various levels of surveillance, I’ve found that the safest method for interacting with sources who would face the most jeopardy if exposed is to meet in person and cover your tracks.
When it was time to arrange for it, I would sometimes use an intermediary for an extra layer of protection in exchanging messages. But no method is full-proof. I always assume the best spyware, such as Pegasus or whatever the NSA has concocted, can read and hear everything on a cell phone or laptop, no matter the encrypted messaging app.”
Additional resources:
| 
