> It's a real world example of how these security features aren't just for "paranoid people" but serve a legit purpose for people who handle sensitive info.

Because they're in the US things might be easier from a legal standpoint for the journalist, but they also have precedent on forcing journalist to expose their sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

In other parts of the world this applies https://xkcd.com/538/ when you don't provide the means to access your phone to the authorities.

It just depends on how much a government wants the data that is stored there.

▲

nickff 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Which countries actually grant reporters immunity from having to reveal information related to criminal investigations (where others would be compelled to, and without criminal penalties)? Such immunity may be desirable (at least in some circumstances), but I am not aware of any jurisdiction that actually grants it.

▲

jampekka 2 hours ago | parent [-]

At least in Finland there's a specific law about journalistic source protection (lähdesuoja) explicitly saying journalists have the right to not reveal sources.

In serious crime cases in some circumstances a court may order a journalist to reveal sources. But it's extremely rare and journalists don't comply even if ordered.

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A4hdesuoja

Edit: the source protection has actually probably never been broken (due to a court order at least): https://yle.fi/a/3-8012415

	▲	nickff 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the info & link! After some searching, I found this rather interesting study on source protection in many (international) jurisdictions, and it calls out Finland, though other countries have interesting approaches as well: https://canadianmedialawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/...