So Miranda broke a law? What were the charges?

I think he's confusing security (which you usually don't go through on a connecting flight) with customs (which you don't normally encounter on transit). And security are concerned with physical objects that might blow up, not files on your computer. I suspect that if you answered this question with "yes, some files with pictures of kittens", you're more likely to get in trouble for making fun of the system that commended for being honest.

Miranda was really just some bloke carrying something through customs for a mate.

Except that he wasn't. He was changing planes. He wasn't in the UK at all when he was apprehended (and had he entered the UK, they would have had a hard time finding a pretext to arrest him there.)

No, he was intercepted, opportunistically and illegitimately. Just like the NSA (and the GCSE) intercept our emails.

And I haven't identified any laws that Miranda might have been breaking.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}

And. Also:

"Could be highly classified national security files. Can't be sure."

Given that (if they existed), they were NSA files from the USA, in which country the possession of such files for journalistic purposes is not a crime, why would German security (they are the ones asking the question) or even UK security be concerned?

The answer is that here, as in so many instances, the UK is happy to do the dirty work that the USA can't do for itself. As, for example, the GCSE does surveillance of internet traffic as subcontractor for the NSA, doing stuff that would be illegal in the USA.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}

Miranda was really just some bloke carrying something through customs for a mate.

Nope. He was detained under an anti-terrorism law, that serves one purpose only: anti-terrorism. All other uses are unlawful.

Nine hours in the life of David Miranda | Jack of Kent

So schedule 7 provides a limited power to question and a limited power to detain.

Both the powers to question and to detain are conditional on the purpose of whether a person falls within section 40(1)(b) of the 2000 Act.

So the next question is fundamental - what does section 40(1)(b) say?

Section 40(1)(b) is a definition clause, and it provides the following definition of "terrorist":

a person who...is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

Section 40(1)(b) thereby is a  limiting definition - the questioning (and any period of detention) under schedule 7 is for seeing if a person falls within this definition.  Accordingly, any questioning (and any period of detention) which is not for this specified purpose is outside the scope of the provision.

But the Guardian have set a precedent.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

Not an idle joke in any case.

Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy

Migeru:

The Great Firewall of China is coming soon to a united kigdom near you. Via meatspace.

Friend of mine who at the time was in China could not access something funny, politically harmless. He noted that of course he could get around the Great Firewall, but that trying might bring unwelcome attention, so unless it was really, really important he was not going to. So yes, meatspace is where they get you and where they frigthen you to censor yourself.

I am not quite sure what the best strategy would have been, but if the choice will reamin one between testing the means judicially and printing I think setting up another paper in Brazil - Guardian Brazil or something - could be a way to ensure capability to do both. After all, you need to get the inforation on how you are being silenced out there, and Guardian Brazil maybe can get some timely leaks on exactly what goes on behind those locked court doors.

Reminds me of the 19th century (but these days, what doesn't?). For example:

Aftonbladet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When it was first published in 1830 by Lars Johan Hierta, it was a tabloid that reported news and also criticised the new Swedish king Charles XIV John. The king stopped Aftonbladet from being printed and banned it. This was answered by starting the new newspaper "Det andra Aftonbladet" (The second Aftonbladet), which was subsequently banned, followed by new versions named in similar fashion until the newspaper had been renamed 26 times, after which it was allowed by the king.^[2]

Or rather, after which the executive power gave up.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

Mig, you would have been better off to accept Crazy Horse's suggested escape route - viz: it was just a joke, instead of returning to the attack - on someone who clearly deserves support at the moment, not nasty little put-downs. Why is he "bragging" about publishing in Brazil, rather than just stating a possible option at the moment? No, he shouldn't have demanded a court order first, the point was to avoid the involvement of legal action as far as possible and the sacrifice of a few bits of hardware was a small price to pay for avoiding legal action and possible prior restraint.

Rusbridger happens to be the editor of a paper which has one of the pioneering and best news and opinion websites, which has taken on the gov over wikileaks and now Snowden/NSA stories. But you're sure he doesn't understand about the powers of gov in relation to the internet - don't you think you might be a little bit arrogant here ?

Rusbridger is talking about what seem to be possible courses of action NOW; he's not claiming they can get stories out and available in the UK WHATEVER the gov might do in the future. The gov is clearly embarrassed by the revelations so far and are reluctant to seem too heavy-handed, hence the civil servant saying "you've had your fun". They have also recently been influenced by the right-wing press's hypocritical defense of press freedom after the Leveson report, so they do not want to seem to be attacking that freedom too much and wouldn't get support from their usual mates in the right-wing media if they did.

I think there would be a lot of public outrage and pressure on the gov if they were shown to be blocking Guardian stories published from elsewhere - they would not want to seem to acting like the Chinese. But this is speculation about possible future scenarios, not evidence of Rusbridger' supposed ignorance, no better supported than was the criticism of Greenwald that he was supposedly "entirely ignorant of international treaties" - which turned out, as I suspected, to be false.

Having seen the kind of material involved in the wikileaks and Snowden/NSA stories, and having had to deal with various kinds of gov pressure over the years I think Rusbridger is pretty well aware of what gov is technically able to do, but also of its desire to keep some sort of credibility in regard to the role of the media in a supposedly democratic society - and the pressure of the right-wing media for the gov not to interfere. I think Rusbridger is to be applauded for the stand he's taken, not arrogantly put down because he hasn't discussed all the possible future scenarios - while you don't take into consideration the government's reluctanace to use all the means techinically available, for political reasons, as their political credibility would be radically undermined if they were seen to be acting like China in blocking access to journalism.  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

Fortunately there are people like Rusbridger around who don't look for an easier place to work, but who work to oppose things they dislike and to try to improve the nature of the jurisdiction.

Others seem to like to carp even about those who do this.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.