The Panama Papers proved encryption is a massive asset for democracy

When the source of the Panama Papers approached us nearly eight years ago to hand over the biggest leak of documents any journalist had ever received, a sentence sent via encrypted chat, stood out: “My life is in danger.”

As we began our investigation into the documents, my colleague Frederik Obermaier and I found that cronies of Russian President Vladimir Putin were included in the leaked data.

It became pretty obvious that “John Doe” — the alias that the Panama Papers leaker chose for him or herself — was right to be afraid. 

Putin was not amused that we could reveal that his childhood friend Sergej Roldugin — a musician by profession, who previously claimed in an interview with the New York Times that he was not a businessman — secretly owned offshore companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Russian president doesn’t particularly like it when someone hits too close to home. And as we all now know, people whom Putin doesn’t like fall out of windows, get blown out of the sky, or simply get shot.

The leak would go on to bring down governments, reveal financial and other crimes on a global scale, and incite mass demonstrations across several countries — because the Panama Papers showed that inequality is still a fundamental issue of our societies around the globe.

Despite the dozens of high-profile enemies these revelations made them, John Doe — the single source behind the Panama Papers — is still unknown. And they are still alive and safe.

This has a lot to do with the fact that they insisted on only having strictly encrypted communications, no exceptions. No phone calls, and definitely no meetings.

With the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), we implemented Jon Doe’s regime with the more