Defense against the dark arts: Basic cyber-security for journalists by Prof. dr. Dariusz Jemielniak.
One of the better non-technical guides I have seen for basic cyber-security.
One big point in its favor: it’s realistic. You can make yourself “less vulnerable” but against the resources of a nation state, you are only less vulnerable.
Even with the solutions mentioned in this guide, good cyber-security requires effort on your part. It is better to choose a lesser level of cyber-security that you practice every day than to be sloppy and create a false sense of security (IMHO).
From the post:
This guide aims to provide basic cyber-hygiene for journalists. When we talk about this, participating journalists often tell us: we have nothing to hide. Or: I don’t write about anything sensitive. But we’re not per se worried that journalists get into fights with the NSA or army divisions. It could happen of course, but consider this: will you ever write about something that can possibly make someone upset? Because what happens much more often is that adversaries will try to intimidate you or disgrace you by throwing your personal data on the street, photos of you holiday, photos of your children, the school address of your children, your financial information and so on. It’s hard to completely avoid it, but you can make it damn hard.
And then there’s the revelations of Snowden and the current struggle between Apple and the FBI, that increased the overall public interest in the subject of privacy. All the while, most of us don’t have the knowledge, experience or time to really get into the technical details of our privacy. This guide goes over some of the more accessible measures and solutions that at least make you less vulnerable. Because privacy often works the same as locking your bike: just make sure you’re better locked than the bike next to you.
…
Beyond the software mentioned in this guide, always remember Rule No. 1:
Never put anything in writing or say before witnesses, anything you don’t want published on the front page of the New York Times or read to a federal grant jury.
Being journalists, however, the value of information is delivering it to others so Rule No. 1 may not always be useful.
In those cases, consider the first rule of regicide:
Leave no walking wounded.
“Speaking truth to power” is a great aphorism but prophets in the Hebrew Bible found that to be a dangerous occupation.
Informing power of truth is ok, but I like seeing information used to alter balances of power.