I missed the brouhaha in the UK over the hamfisted detention and interrogation of David Miranda, the partner of Guardian reporter, Glenn Greenwald who's made much of the running on the Edward Snowden story.
Long story short, the UK government used laws designed to trap and hold terror suspects at border crossings to put a bag on Miranda - not even a journalist, just the partner of a journalist - threatening him with jail if they didn't 'get their stuff back'.
This goonish rum-thugggery and the smashing of Guardian laptops and hard drives would be a dark satire on the modern surveillance state if it wasn't so serious. Most of the west, especially the anglosphere has introduced wide ranging anti-terror laws since 9/11 which have proven themselves to be very attractive legal instruments when faced with uncomfortable public debates about the limits of that same national security state.
The Guardian's editor has written a slightly uneven piece here, which provides a basic rundown. (You can skip the first three pars, they're irrelevant and kind of confusing). The conclusions are dark.
The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes – and, increasingly, it looks like "when".