Investigative journalism based on confidential sources is under threat unless legal protections are substantially strengthened and surveillance and data retention limited.

A new study by Australian former World Editors Forum/WAN-Ifra research fellow Julie Posetti (pictured) says such journalism will be "difficult to sustain" in the digital era, with of potential sources inhibited in many other cases.

Protecting journalism sources in the digital age - produced by WAN-Ifra for UNESCO - will be launched in Jakarta on Wednesday (May 3) which is World Press Freedom Day.

The report examines growing risks confronting forms of journalism dependent upon confidential sources and whistleblowers, and finds that legal frameworks that support protection of journalistic sources, at international, regional and country levels, are under significant strain.

Posetti says the study is being launched in the context of unprecedented digital risks to confidential journalistic communications - from security agencies intercepting reporters' emails, to US customs officials seizing journalists' phones and, just last week, Australian Federal Police admitting that they illegally accessed a journalist's metadata.

"It's utterly chilling, and urgent reform is required," she says. "I genuinely hope that the study serves as an effective tool in the struggle to defend investigative journalism dependent on confidential sources, and the efforts of whistleblowers, in the interest of strengthening democracy."

In many of the countries examined in this study, it was found that legal source protection frameworks are being actually or potentially:

overridden by national security and anti-terrorism legislation;

undercut by surveillance - both mass and targeted;

jeopardised by mandatory data retention policies and pressure applied to third party intermediaries - such as ISPs, telcos, search engines, social media platforms - to release data which risks exposing sources;

outdated when it comes to regulating the collection and use of digital data, such as whether information recorded without consent is admissible in a court case against either a journalist or a source; and whether digitally stored material gathered by journalistic actors is covered by existing source protection laws.

challenged by questions about entitlement to claim protection - as underscored by the questions: 'Who is a journalist?' and 'What is journalism?'

The study identifies 13 key findings:

The issue of source protection has come to intersect with the issues of mass surveillance, targeted surveillance, data retention, the spill-over effects of anti-terrorism/national security legislation, and the role of third party Internet companies known as "intermediaries.

Legal and regulatory protections for journalists' sources are increasingly at risk of erosion, restriction and compromise.

84 UNESCO Member States out of 121 studied (69 per cent) for this report demonstrated developments relevant to the protection of confidentiality of journalistic sources, mainly with actual or potential impact, between 2007 and mid-2015.

Individual states face a need to introduce or update source protection laws.

Source protection laws need to cover journalistic processes and communications with confidential sources - including telephone calls, social media, messaging apps, and emails - along with published journalism that depends on confidential sources.

Transparency and accountability regarding both mass and targeted surveillance, and data retention, are critically important if confidential sources are to be able to continue to confidently make contact with journalists.

Without substantial strengthening of legal protections and limitations on surveillance and data retention, investigative journalism that relies on confidential sources will be difficult to sustain in the digital era, and reporting in many other cases will encounter inhibitions on the part of potential sources.

It is recommended to define 'acts of journalism', as distinct from the role of 'journalist', in determining who can benefit from source protection laws.

To optimise benefits, source protection laws should be strengthened in tandem with legal protections extended to whistleblowers, who constitute a significant set of confidential journalistic sources.

Journalists are increasingly adapting their practice in an effort to partially shield their sources from exposure, but steps to limit anonymity and encryption undermine these adaptations.

The financial cost of the digital era source protection threat is significant (in terms of digital security tools, training, and legal advice), as is its impact on the production and scope of investigative journalism based on confidential sources.

There is a need to educate both journalists and citizens in digital safety.

Journalists and others who rely on confidential sources to report in the public interest may need to train their sources in secure methods of contact and information-sharing

While traditional legal frameworks for source protection remain strong in some states, and are progressing in others, they are under significant risk from a combination of developments. These are caused, for the most part, by digital disruption, and by overreach in measures that are introduced in the name of national security or combating crime.

"The study finds that unless journalistic communications are recognised, surveillance is made subject to checks and balances; data retention laws are limited; accountability and transparency measures -applied to both States and corporations - are improved, confidence in the confidentiality of sources could be weakened," says Julie Posetti. "The result could be that much public interest information, such as that about corruption and abuse, will remain hidden from public view."

A major recommendation of this study is consideration of an 11-point assessment tool for measuring the effectiveness of legal source protection frameworks in the digital age.

This Study concludes that law-makers, journalists, editors and publishers among others can play an important role in promoting public understanding of these issues, and in advocating for change

The findings are based on an examination of the legal source protection frameworks in each country, drawing on academic research, online repositories, reportage by news and human rights organisations, more than 130 survey respondents and qualitative interviews with nearly 50 international experts and practitioners globally. Seventeen international researchers and research assistants contributed to the research.

Julie Posetti is a University of Wollongong (Australia) researcher who heads digital editorial capability at Fairfax Media. She was editor and Research Fellow with WEF/WAN-Ifra in 2014/2015.