>[the court] said, in this particular case involving a deliberately non-confidential source, the “state’s interest in the investigation and prosecution of crime outweighed the media’s right to privacy in gathering and disseminating the news.”

seems reasonable to me. if you're talking to a reporter and don't want the government seizing their notes, do it confidentially.

People considered terrorists by the government will not contact or speak with journalists if they can't trust that their conversations with the journalist will not be seen by the government. It's not a matter of "just don't go on the record." The source presumably has built up trust in the journalist and trusts their judgement to not compromise the source. An example that comes to mind is Robert Fisk interviewing Osama Bin Laden in 1993. The interview was on the record. He was even at the time a major world figure. People wanted to know what he had to say. He would presumably been unwilling to do the interview if he thought that the CIA would seize Frisk's notes determine his location and assassinate him.

> People wanted to know what he had to say

Sure. Also applies to modern sources of controversy and "view count": flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, populist demagogues and other controversy generators.

I'm skeptical. How much of it is journalistic interest, how much is "wanting page views?"

What difference does it make?

What does it mean to be a non confidential source? Did the journalist explicitly say it was not confidential, or did they just not swear it was confidential?

My understanding is that there is a protocol that sources and journalists follow concerning “on the record, “off the record,” or somewhere in between that is negotiated before the interview begins. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/reader-center/off-the-rec...)

Doesn't seem reasonable to me. At the stake is not just press freedom, but its integrity.

Canada is also a signatory on UDHR, they can't violate terrorist's fundamental right to privacy.

What are the legal consequences if the records have been destroyed? And the reporter will answer any questions, but there are no notes, files, recordings, etc? Surely "contempt of court" isn't a life sentence?

If the records are willfully destroyed by the reporter, the government could choose to file charges that go beyond "contempt of court" — Canadian law defines a "terrorist offence" to include, among others, accessory after the fact. The prosecution would presumably then need to demonstrate that the reporter knowingly hindered the prosecution of a terrorist and that this fits the available laws. Also, destroying one's records to protect one's own reputation as a reporter might well qualify as "for personal gain", further worsening their chances of having a plausible defense.

(d) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2001_41/F...

Would this apply if the reporter had destroyed the data prior to the government request? What about in the case where such a destruction were a condition set by the terrorist in order to proceed with the interview?

Those are useful questions to consider, but as with the risks I describe, ultimately would require a court decision.

2-5 years in Canada it seems for civil contempt. In the US it can be indefinite though. To be held in civil contempt you are supposed be able to free yourself by simply complying. If complying is not possible you can generally make a impossibility defense. The court should allow you free if it cannot be proved to the standard of clear and convincing evidence that you have the ability to comply.

That's how you any future possibility of trust.

I think you accidentally a word.

Indeed.