The role of the media as public watchdogs, holding government accountable, is more important than ever in the current European and global context of threats to democratic stability resulting from terrorism, the financial crisis and rapid climate change. Yet at precisely the same time, the rise of privacy-invading surveillance technologies justified by public security considerations is having a direct impact on the exercise of journalism. In November 2008 a Council of Europe survey warned: 

"New anti-terrorism laws are giving authorities wide powers to conduct surveillance. Sources protections and journalists’ rights are often undermined by the use of these laws. Other new laws are making it easier to conduct surveillance by imposing technical and administrative requirements on keeping information."

Reports from media freedom organisations confirm increased activity by governments and government agencies around Europe which directly affects the professional and physical security of journalists. These reports also indicated that surveillance of journalists’ communication and data is having a chilling effect on the practice of journalism.

The need for journalists to protect their sources is not only about the right not to testify in court but means protection of all journalistic material, particularly material held in electronic form. This is true for all journalists, whether they be investigative journalists looking into serious issues of corruption, organised crime, and human rights violations linked to the “war on terror”, or regional and local journalists reporting on the activities of local authorities and businesses.

Wire-tapping is one wide-spread practice in Europe. In January 2005 Intelligence service Chief of Romania Mr. Radu Timofte admitted that he had tapped the phones of two journalists. In November 2007, the German parliament approved a law requiring telecommunications providers to retain all customer communication data for a period of six months. That law made possible for law enforcement bodies to gain access to stored communications covering telephone calls, text messages and faxes if they obtain a court order. The law has also made provision for access to emails and other internet data 2009. The amended telecommunications law also allows authorities to monitor the telephone conversations of lawyers, doctors and journalists in the course of investigations into serious crimes.

A May 2008 report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklós Haraszti on access to information by the media in the OSCE region also identified some problems linked to journalist’s investigative activities and the need to protect data security. Some examples from European countries that are OSCE members include

• In the Netherlands, two journalists from the newspaper De Telegraaf were detained in November 2006 after refusing to disclose the source of intelligence dossiers on a criminal.
• Police in Italy searched the offices of La Repubblica and the Piccolo newspapers and two journalists’ homes for files in 2003. Also in 2003, the police raided Il Giornale and seized a reported 7,000 files
• In Belgium, Stern reporter Hans-Martin Tillack was detained and his office and home were searched after he wrote an investigative story based on internal documents from the European Union’s Anti-Fraud Agency (OLAF). The European Court of Justice rejected a challenge in October 2006 to force the return of the documents. Belgium has since amended its law.
• In France, the police searched the offices of Le Point and L’Equipe and seized computers following the publication of stories about sports doping investigations. The Minister of Justice Pascal Clément promised in June 2006 to strengthen the law protecting journalists. However, in July 2006, police searched the offices of Midi Libre following a complaint that it broke professional secrecy.
• In the Russian Federation, twenty armed police searched the offices of Permsky Obozrevatel in August 2006 and seized computers and other equipment, claiming that the newspaper had obtained classified information.