Source Protection and Privacy
Week 6 - DRAFT for PEER REVIEW - Source Protection and Privacy
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
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] 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 Cases
Branzburg v. Hayes
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 presence laid the foundation and legal precedence. [4]
Edward Snowden
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. [5] 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.
Freedom of Information Act
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. [6]
News Media Practices
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, some news organizations are providing resources and a stronger IT department that handles instances of phishing, password sharing, use of information clouds on their infrastructure. [7]
Technology
Emerging technologies have also begun being 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.[8] 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.[9] 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.
-Response (inventions of new tech to combat violations)/ k-anonymity)
K anonnymity
SecureDrop
International Cases
- Bulgaria, Poland, Romania
-Across the board government surveillance
Public Interest
- 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
Week 5 - Outline: Source Protection and Privacy
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
-Precedent for source confidentiality
-Use of informal protections
-Relation to FBI and other agencies
Legal Cases
-Expand Branzburg v. Hayes
- Snowden
- Freedom of Information Act
News Media Practices
- Include Organizational Computer Security and Privacy Concerns
Technology
- 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
- Bulgaria, Poland, Romania
-Across the board government surveillance
Public Interest
- 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
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
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
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).
- ^ 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
- ^ 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.).
- ^ 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).
- ^ 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