Indeed. I just finished reading the article on the guardian and my suspicions were certainly wrong. The guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/

Indeed. I just finished reading the article on the guardian and my suspicions were certainly wrong. The guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-i... indicates that David knew he was carrying data, but not what it was. The NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/europe/britain-detains-the-partner-of-glen-greenwald.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&gwh=21FCEB2E24DA2CFBD7EDF60B359493F9& http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/europe/britain-detai... has Greenwald confirming that David was facilitating the exchange between himself and Poitras of NSA documents. I shake my head at the matter and wonder why they didn't just use dead drops. Though I wouldn't say this justifies their use of anti-terrorism legislation to perform an extra-judicial shakedown of an individual working in the service of journalism. Free speech is a fundamental human right, not a privilege. One does not need to receive a paycheck from a newspaper to be a journalist or do journalism, nor even be the point man speaking, for journalism is merely the act of speaking informedly to the public at large. Whether you're the final writer, or the editor, or the source, or the courier delivering mail everyday, you're in the service of journalism if the end product is such speech. Any attempt to interfere with that process is repulsive, no matter where in the chain the authorities choose to strike. Sadly though, it seems free speech is not held in very high regard in most parts of the world.