Afghan data breach: Just how bad is it for MI6 and SAS?
For serving and former members of the highly secretive Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS), leaks like this one can, in theory, expose them to the risk of threat to life, given the lethal, covert operations some will have taken part in that may have involved the deaths or capture of individuals. The physical risk resulting from this leak to those members of UK Special Forces whose names were on the leaked dataset is judged to be minimal. Those who face the greatest risk are Afghans still in Afghanistan.The revelation that, in addition to the thousands of leaked names and details of potentially vulnerable Afghans, there are 100 or more involving British operatives is certainly shocking. But this "unauthorised data breach" was - belatedly - discovered as far back as August 2023. So that has given the UK intelligence and special forces communities nearly two years in which to come up with ways to mitigate this disaster and adopt whatever protective measures they can, for both Afghans and Brits on the leaked dataset.
Amongst the worse-case scenarios that MI6 in particular will have had to consider is that Russia, China, Iran or even North Korea may now also be in possession of those leaked names. It is a fair assumption to make that the Taliban's intelligence apparatus would have had little interest in the names of long-departed British soldiers and spies. But they would be canny enough to work out who would be interested: the UK's global adversaries.For now, those who have most to fear are the 600 former Afghan government soldiers and their estimated 1,800 relatives who are still in Afghanistan. Whatever routes out were being suggested to them will have now been compromised and the publicity surrounding this whole story will have inevitably re-energised some of the more fanatical members of the Taliban to hunt down those on the list and exact what they perceive as rightful vengeance for treachery during the 20 years when they were out of power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Preventing violence against women and girls must remain a priority
When The Independent launched the Brick by Brick campaign last September for women trying to escape domestic abuse, it undoubtedly touched a nerve with our readers. The initial target of £300,000 was hit after only a month, and we decided to build a second safe house as more than £585,000 was raised. We thank our readers for supporting this deserving cause so generously. The first home is occupied, and the second, also built by Persimmon Homes, is now ready for another family to move in. The campaign, run jointly with Refuge, the domestic abuse charity, won the support of politicians, royalty and celebrities, including the Queen, Sir Keir Starmer, Dame Helen Mirren, Dame Joanna Lumley, Olivia Colman, Victoria Derbyshire, Andi Oliver, David Morrissey and Sir Patrick Stewart. Other backers included The Julia Rausing Trust and Nationwide. Sir Keir said: 'My government has a commitment to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) and we will need to pull every lever across society to make this happen, which is why I am so proud of campaigns like this that show what we can achieve when we stand together.' The Independent, too, is proud of what we and our readers have achieved. It will make a real difference and, as Refuge noted, potentially save lives. While the government's pledge to halve VAWG in a decade is welcome, campaign groups and some Labour MPs are understandably worried about an apparent lack of tangible progress during the first year of Sir Keir's administration. Some are starting to lose patience with Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding, who had an impeccable record on the issue in opposition and knows what she is talking about as a former manager of Women's Aid refuges in the West Midlands. The problem might go deeper than Ms Phillips. The Home Office budget was squeezed in the spending review published by Rachel Reeves last month, and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, was the last cabinet minister to settle with the Treasury. Regrettably, there was no mention of VAWG in the chancellor's statement. Gemma Sherrington, the CEO of Refuge, said the message from it was that the pledge 'is not the priority the government claims it to be'. A long-awaited strategy to address the issue is now due this autumn. It will be a pivotal moment. With VAWG accounting for 20 per cent of recorded crime in 2022-23, the Home Office seems keen to prioritise prevention. But The Independent believes the blueprint must ensure a genuinely cross-government effort so all relevant Whitehall departments – including those responsible for health, education and technology – play their part, rather than regard domestic abuse as someone else's problem. The prime minister's plan for 'mission-driven government' is laudable, and closer cross-departmental working is supposed to be a key part of it. Yet the traditional battles between individual departments and the Treasury ahead of the spending review showed that the old, silo-driven mentality is alive and kicking in Whitehall. Domestic abuse is one area where Downing Street must intervene to bring a more holistic approach. Crucially, the new strategy should include not only direct investment in lifesaving schemes such as accommodation, but must also guarantee enough money for the day-to-day services needed to deliver the promise. As the Commons home affairs select committee noted in a report this month, 'funding remains fragmented and poorly aligned with evidence of what works'. Although cross-departmental boards have been established, transparency is limited, and trust in the Home Office's ability to lead remains low, the committee said. Ominously, it warned: 'We are not convinced that the department has the capacity or imagination to deliver on its target ... Without determined and coordinated action by ministers, the government will not meet its target to halve VAWG in a decade.' The Independent will be watching closely to see whether the government puts itself on track to meet its target.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Iranian' refugee can stay in Britain – by claiming he's now Afghan
An asylum seeker who claimed to be Iranian has won a reprieve to stay in the UK after maintaining he is now Afghan and in fear of the Taliban. The man, granted anonymity by immigration judges, had his asylum claim rejected 10 years ago after failing to establish that he had a 'well-founded fear of persecution' if returned to Iran. He was not, however, removed from the UK and lodged an appeal, ahead of which he claimed to have lived in Afghanistan until he was 17 before travelling to Iran. He claimed that he had not raised it previously and instead falsely asserted to be Iranian out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan, legal documents disclose. The Home Office argued his credibility was 'significantly undermined' by his claim previously to be Iranian but judges ordered his case should be reheard because he was not present when his appeal was rejected. His lawyers claimed his non-attendance was due to an administrative oversight. The appeal is the latest case revealed in court papers, seen by The Telegraph, where illegal migrants or foreign criminals have been allowed to remain in the UK. It follows the revelation that thousands of Afghans have moved to the UK under a secret scheme which was set up after a British official inadvertently leaked their data. The existence of the leak and relocations was kept secret after the Government obtained a super-injunction stopping it from becoming public. The asylum seeker arrived in the UK in August 2012 and claimed asylum the following month. An appeal by a first-tier immigration tribunal was rejected on the basis that he was found to 'lack credibility and to have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran.' He remained in the UK and in July 2021 appealed, claiming he feared persecution upon return to Iran on account of his Baluch ethnicity, his Sunni Muslim faith, and the fact that he had left Iran illegally. The man claimed his brother's smuggling activities would also place him at risk if returned and that his poor mental health would prevent him from reintegrating in Iran, in breach of his article three rights to protection from persecution under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Then, in a witness statement submitted in advance of his appeal hearing, he provided an alternative basis for claiming asylum – that he was a national of Afghanistan, where he lived until the age of 17. He claimed he left Afghanistan because of the problems his family faced with the Taliban. He further indicated that his father, brother, and sister remain residents in Afghanistan. 'He stated that, upon claiming asylum in the UK, he falsely asserted Iranian nationality out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan. He now claims that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would face ill-treatment at the hands of the Taliban,' the court was told. 'He also maintains that his mental health issues would constitute very significant obstacles to his reintegration in Afghanistan and that his removal would therefore amount to a breach of Article 8 [rights to a family life] under the ECHR.' 'His credibility was central' The Home Office maintained that, given he had previously advanced a claim based on Iranian nationality, his credibility was now 'significantly undermined'. Officials also said there was 'no substantive evidence' to establish his Afghan nationality, except for a biometric identity card allegedly belonging to his cousin, 'for which no supporting evidence of a familial relationship was provided'. But after he failed to turn up for the hearing, an upper immigration tribunal judge ruled that his case should be reheard by a first-tier tribunal. This was because his 'credibility was central to the determination of the claim, thereby rendering his oral evidence of critical importance', the court ruled. 'Furthermore, there was evidence before the Tribunal of the [asylum seeker's] documented mental health difficulties, which required careful consideration in the context of procedural fairness. 'The Judge's reasoning fails to reflect adequate engagement with these issues, or with the question of whether the appeal could be fairly and justly determined in the [asylum seeker's] absence.'
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Terror charges brought against three women after van is driven into the fence of a defence factory in Edinburgh in pro-Palestine protest
Terror charges have been brought against three women after a van was driven into the fence of a defence factory in Edinburgh in a pro-Palestine protest. The incident happened at the site run by global security company Leonardo in the Pilton area of the Scottish capital on Tuesday morning. The facility, on Crewe Road North, was also defaced with white paint in the direct action by campaign group Shut Down Leonardo. The women, aged 31, 34 and 42, who had earlier been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 have now been charged. They are due to appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday. Police Scotland's counter-terrorism unit is leading the ongoing investigation - and has appealed for information about the vehicles involved. The crashed large light blue Ford Transit van was seen on Gorgie Road, around a 15-minute drive away, on Monday and Tuesday before the incident. A white Honda CR-Z, a sporty hybrid car, was recovered in a car park off the same A road after the incident. Pictures show a Palestinian flag hanging off the crashed van, which was crashed into a tall metal fence topped with barbed wire. The three women are seen sitting on top of the van, which they appear to be helped down from by emergency workers. A shot of them atop the vehicle sees one of the women smile directly at the camera, while another displays her handcuffed wrists and the last wears a Palestine shirt. Direct action campaign group Shut Down Leonardo has since said the protest was against the factory making laser targeting systems for Israel's F-35 fighter jets. Leonardo has said it does not supply equipment directly to Israel and its main customer is the UK Armed Forces. The firm told the PA news agency: 'Leonardo UK is subject to UK government export controls and does not supply equipment direct to Israel. 'The right to peaceful protest is an important principle in our society, however, aggressive and violent activity should have no place in protest. 'The intimidation of our people, who work hard to support the security and defence of the UK, is not acceptable.' Police have previously said they are treating the incident as 'targeted' and do not think it poses a wider threat to the public. Leonardo's website describes it as one of the biggest suppliers of defence and security equipment to the Ministry of Defence. It operates from nine sites across the UK, employing more than 8,500 people. The force has also asked anyone with information to get in touch by calling 101, quoting reference number 0416 of July 15.
