 The detention of David Miranda was an unlawful use of the Terrorism Act
I think I finally understand this. His detention wasn't to send a message, or intimidate the Guardian, or anything else: the BBC News article covering the injunction that Miranda has applied for says this:<p>"The court was also told that "tens of thousands of highly classified documents" had been seized."<p>Miranda had at least some of the Snowden archive with him. The UK, US and friends have absolutely no idea what that archive contains - except for the information which has so far been released.<p>Every information release has been timed for almost maximum effect; Obama in particular seems to have been caught either being misinformed or deliberately misdirecting. This is the collective's only opportunity to get ahead of the game.<p>There is no way the court in the UK will injunct the use and sharing of this data; but even if they did, you can bet your bottom dollar that copies have already been sent out to NSA and friends.<p>Finally it all makes sense. The various journalists involved will not send the data over the internet for obvious reasons - even if encrypted, it allows the various agencies know who has what. Sending data by personal courier is the only way. However, it's demonstrably unsafe at this point.<p>What they need is an anonymous system of data mules, smuggling information just like drugs. Just thinking of all the mechanics you'd need to put in place to make that actually work just boggles the mind.<p>EDIT: I meant to link to the Beeb article; it's this one: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23790578" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23790578</a><p>Another edit: This just struck me. The Guardian hard drive incident happened about a month ago. The Govt could have pulled this Terrorist Act stuff with them, and indeed they intimated it, but they didn't go through with it. They wanted this data, but legally didn't seem to be able to get it. One man travelling alone through an airport is much easier to pressurize, and maybe the jurisdiction is just unclear enough that their onshore-illegal tactic is legal there.<p>Final edit: the judgement is out: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23790578" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23790578</a> The data taken can only be examined or copied for "national security purposes", which - since it's all secret - I believe basically means nothing. The various agencies will soon know exactly what Snowden took.