Latest news with #DataLeak
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Defence secretary revealed sensitive Afghan data breach details - but media still banned from reporting it
Sensitive details exposed by the huge Afghan data breach that potentially put tens of thousands of people at risk were revealed by the defence secretary - but the media are still banned from reporting them. John Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the British Government for a massive leak which shared information about Afghans seeking to escape to the UK because of their links to British troops and could only be reported after a two-year fight to lift an unprecedented superinjunction. But in his address to MPs, Mr Healey disclosed details that the media still cannot publish because a second gagging order remains in place. Media organisations, including The Independent, are seeking to overturn that order at the High Court, which would allow information that has previously been kept secret to finally be revealed. The catastrophic breach, made by a Ministry of Defence official in February 2022, triggered a covert government operation that saw 16,000 Afghans evacuated to Britain, with some 8,000 still to come. The whole operation was kept secret from MPs and the public, with ministers even deciding to hide the true reason for the evacuation from parliament, after the MoD claimed the release of information could put those named in the database at risk of reprisals from the Taliban. Lifting the superinjunction on Tuesday, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain called for further investigation after an official review into the data leak 'fundamentally undermined the evidential basis' on which the superinjunction had been based. Media organisations, including The Independent, the Daily Mail and The Times, were hit with a fresh injunction on Tuesday, which banned any mention of certain information, over fears it could risk national security. But despite MoD lawyers arguing the information should never be shared, Mr Healey revealed some of the details to MPs in Parliament. That prompted Mr Justice Chamberlain to call an emergency hearing on Tuesday to address whether the second injunction should now be lifted. He told the court, in a public hearing, that MoD lawyers were pushing for it to remain in place, arguing that any release of the information would result in 'damage to national security'. 'The MoD has asked for time to produce evidence of this... I have reached the provisional view that if evidence will be produced, it will have to be produced very quickly', he added. The judge has now given time for media defendants and the MoD to attempt to agree on what information can be published and what must remain secret.
Arab News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
How an email error sparked a secret scramble to bring thousands of Afghans to Britain
LONDON: British governments past and present face allegations of avoiding scrutiny and undermining democracy after the revelation that thousands of Afghans have been resettled in the UK under a program that was hidden from the media, the public and lawmakers in Parliament. Key information was also kept from the Afghans themselves, who had assisted UK forces and whose personal details had been disclosed in a huge data leak. Many plan to sue the British government for putting them in danger from the Taliban. Some are left in Afghanistan as the current British government says the resettlement program will end. Here's what happened in an extraordinary chain of events. An email error with huge consequences The saga was triggered by the chaotic Western exit from Afghanistan in August 2021 as the Taliban, ousted from power 20 years earlier, swept across the country, seized Kabul and reimposed their strict version of Islamic law. Afghans who had worked with Western forces — as fixers, translators and in other roles — or who had served in the internationally backed Afghan army were at risk of retribution. Britain set up a program, known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, or ARAP, to bring some to the UK. In February 2022, a defense official emailed a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 ARAP applicants to someone outside the Ministry of Defense. The government says the individual thought they were sending a list of about 150 names, not the whole set. The British government only became aware of the leak when a portion of the data was posted on Facebook 18 months later by someone who threatened to publish the whole list. The government sought secrecy The leak sparked alarm among British officials who feared as many as 100,000 people were in danger when family numbers of the named individuals were added. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring publication of the list. A judge granted a sweeping order known as a super injunction, which barred anyone from revealing not only information about the leak but the existence of the injunction itself. Super injunctions are relatively rare and their use is controversial. Most of the handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being granted to the government. Former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said Wednesday that he sought the legal order to gain 'time and space to deal with this leak, find out whether the Taliban had it' and protect those at risk. Wallace said he asked for an ordinary injunction — not a super injunction — for a period of four months. The gag order remained in place for almost two years. A secret program sparked a legal battle The government began bringing to Britain the Afghans on the leaked list who were judged to be most at risk. To date, some 4,500 people — 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to Britain under the program. About 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a cost of 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion). In all, about 36,000 Afghans have been resettled in the UK since 2021. Meanwhile, several news organizations had learned of the leaked list but were barred from publishing stories about it. They challenged the super injunction in court, and a judge ordered it lifted in May 2024 — but it remained in place after the government appealed. The government finally came clean Britain held an election in July 2024 that brought the center-left Labour Party to power. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Cabinet learned of the injunction soon after taking office and grappled with how to proceed. In January, the government ordered a review by a former senior civil servant. They found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the Taliban. The review said the Taliban had other sources of information on those who had worked with the previous Afghan government and international forces and is more concerned with current threats to its authority. Given those findings, the government dropped its support for the super injunction. The injunction was lifted in court Tuesday, and minutes later Defense Secretary John Healey stood in the House of Commons to make the saga public for the first time. Many questions remain unanswered Healey said the secret settlement route was being closed, but acknowledged Wednesday that 'the story is just beginning,' and many questions remain unanswered. Immigration critics including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage are demanding to know what screening was done on the people who came under the secret program. Lawyers for Afghans on the leaked list want to know why the information was kept from them. Adnan Malik, head of data privacy at UK legal firm Barings Law, said he was assembling a class-action lawsuit by hundreds of former translators, soldiers and others. Lawmakers and free speech advocates say the use of a super injunction is deeply worrying. They ask how Parliament and the media can hold the government to account if there is such stringent secrecy. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the super injunction 'had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability.' Healey acknowledged that 'you cannot have democracy with super injunctions in place,' and said the government had acted as quickly and safely as it could. 'Accountability starts now,' he told the BBC.
CTV News
5 days ago
- Politics
- CTV News
How an email error sparked a secret scramble to bring thousands of Afghans to Britain
LONDON — British governments past and present face allegations of avoiding scrutiny and undermining democracy after the revelation that thousands of Afghans have been resettled in the U.K under a program that was hidden from the media, the public and lawmakers in Parliament. Key information was also kept from the Afghans themselves, who had assisted U.K. forces and whose personal details had been disclosed in a huge data leak. Many plan to sue the British government for putting them in danger from the Taliban. Some are left in Afghanistan as the current British government says the resettlement program will end. Here's what happened in an extraordinary chain of events. An email error with huge consequences The saga was triggered by the chaotic Western exit from Afghanistan in August 2021 as the Taliban, ousted from power 20 years earlier, swept across the country, seized Kabul and reimposed their strict version of Islamic law. Afghans who had worked with Western forces — as fixers, translators and in other roles — or who had served in the internationally backed Afghan army were at risk of retribution. Britain set up a program, known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, or ARAP, to bring some to the U.K. In February 2022, a defense official emailed a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 ARAP applicants to someone outside the Ministry of Defense. The government says the individual thought they were sending a list of about 150 names, not the whole set. The British government only became aware of the leak when a portion of the data was posted on Facebook 18 months later by someone who threatened to publish the whole list. The government sought secrecy The leak sparked alarm among British officials who feared as many as 100,000 people were in danger when family numbers of the named individuals were added. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring publication of the list. A judge granted a sweeping order known as a super injunction, which barred anyone from revealing not only information about the leak but the existence of the injunction itself. Super injunctions are relatively rare and their use is controversial. Most of the handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being granted to the government. Former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said Wednesday that he sought the legal order to gain 'time and space to deal with this leak, find out whether the Taliban had it' and protect those at risk. Wallace said he asked for an ordinary injunction — not a super injunction — for a period of four months. The gag order remained in place for almost two years. A secret program sparked a legal battle The government began bringing to Britain the Afghans on the leaked list who were judged to be most at risk. To date, some 4,500 people — 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to Britain under the program. About 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a cost of 850 million pounds (US$1.1 billion). In all, about 36,000 Afghans have been resettled in the U.K. since 2021. Meanwhile, several news organizations had learned of the leaked list but were barred from publishing stories about it. They challenged the super injunction in court, and a judge ordered it lifted in May 2024 — but it remained in place after the government appealed. The government finally came clean Britain held an election in July 2024 that brought the center-left Labour Party to power. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Cabinet learned of the injunction soon after taking office and grappled with how to proceed. In January, the government ordered a review by a former senior civil servant. They found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the Taliban. The review said the Taliban had other sources of information on those who had worked with the previous Afghan government and international forces and is more concerned with current threats to its authority. Given those findings, the government dropped its support for the super injunction. The injunction was lifted in court Tuesday, and minutes later Defense Secretary John Healey stood in the House of Commons to make the saga public for the first time. Many questions remain unanswered Healey said the secret settlement route was being closed, but acknowledged Wednesday that 'the story is just beginning,' and many questions remain unanswered. Immigration critics including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage are demanding to know what screening was done on the people who came under the secret program. Lawyers for Afghans on the leaked list want to know why the information was kept from them. Adnan Malik, head of data privacy at U.K. legal firm Barings Law, said he was assembling a class-action lawsuit by hundreds of former translators, soldiers and others. Lawmakers and free speech advocates say the use of a super injunction is deeply worrying. They ask how Parliament and the media can hold the government to account if there is such stringent secrecy. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the super injunction 'had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability.' Healey acknowledged that 'you cannot have democracy with super injunctions in place,' and said the government had acted as quickly and safely as it could. 'Accountability starts now,' he told the BBC. Jill Lawless, The Associated Press
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
‘My husband was on the Taliban's kill list. Thank you Britain for saving us'
Four months ago, the Mohammadi* family were at home in Afghanistan when they received an email that was as chilling as it was businesslike. The father of three young children opened his laptop and clicked on the message, which declared it was from the Home Office of the British Government. The email said he was on a list of those whom the UK had chosen to bring to Britain amid fears for their safety following a data leak. For four years, the family had kept secret the fact that the father had worked with the British Army shortly after it began its protracted battle with the Taliban in 2014. As a trained English teacher, the father's skills made him invaluable to British officers eager to gain local intelligence about the whereabouts of enemy commanders. Like so many Afghan interpreters employed by the Army, he saw the arrival of the foreign forces as an opportunity to drag Afghanistan out of the grips of the oppressive regime imposed by the extreme religious intolerance of the Taliban. The parents, in their late 20s, believed they could work with the UK soldiers to contribute to forging a better Afghanistan – as well as earning a regular income – and, importantly, were assured their safety would be guaranteed. But, when the last remaining British troops ignominiously flew out from the Afghan capital in August 2021, the Mohammadis had no choice but to live in fear and harbour their secret. On Wednesday, those fears were quite literally thousands of miles away. Speaking as she returned with her three children to a Home Office hotel in Bracknell, Berkshire, the interpreter's wife placed the palm of her hand on her heart and said: 'We arrived in the UK a month ago. We were flown from Kabul to Pakistan and then on to London.' She spoke in broken English (momentarily laughing as she explained that it was her husband, who was in his hotel room, who was fluent). 'We are grateful [to be here],' she said, placing a hand on her son's head. She continued: 'The Taliban is very dangerous, very dangerous – we were scared for our safety.' The interpreter's wife, who did not want to be fully identified, in part because she had been told not to talk to journalists by hotel security guards, said she felt safe in England. She was blissfully unaware that her family's arrival, along with thousands of others, was at the centre of a political storm. 'We are grateful, thank you, thank you,' she said as she made her way back into the hotel and a security guard looked on. According to court documents, Afghans have been sent to Bracknell in Berkshire, Preston in Lancashire, Aberdeen in Scotland, and Cardiff in Wales. Others were sent to West Sussex and Yorkshire, while plans were afoot for hotels to be opened up to them in the North East, East Anglia and the East Midlands. In Larkhill, Wiltshire, a cheerful Afghan mother said: 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.' If there's one word that sums up the attitude of Afghan families relocated to the UK under the scheme designed to protect those who served the British Army, it is gratitude. But there is another word that encapsulates the impact of those new arrivals on the families of British Army personnel already living at Larkhill Army base in Wiltshire: resentment. Or as one mother, also taking her children to school, put it: 'When they arrived they got help with everything. Accommodation, doctors, learning English, free transport. But we don't get that for free. We have to pay for everything. It's just unfair.' Hard-pressed British Army families feel their burden has grown heavier since the arrival of the Afghan interpreters and their families under the Government's resettlement scheme. Some say they were moved out of existing Army accomodation to house them. Others report longer waiting times at the Larkhill Health Centre because of the influx of new patients. Some of the friction is undoubtedly cultural. Or as one young Welsh mother, married to a British Army squaddie put it: 'The Afghan men and boys stare at us because we're different to their women. 'We're not covered up, maybe we don't wear as much, especially in summer, but so what? We're always told to respect each other's differences, but they don't seem to respect us. 'I've even had the teenage boys on the pavement block my path. Why do they do that? It might only be a minority of the Afghans behaving this way but it's not nice.' Her friend, who is married to a Fijian soldier, was keen to emphasise it was not a question of race but of what appeared to be two-tier treatment. Two-tier treatment? She said: 'I'm married to a black man. He's served his country and put his life on the line, yet he's struggling to get British citizenship. Just stuck in the system. 'Why is that? It's the same with the other Commonwealth lads. They've served this country, but they don't seem to get any extra help or benefits, not like the Afghans. 'When they first arrived they all got welfare visits to make sure they were OK and did they need anything. We didn't get any of that. Why?' For Briony Slatter, a 26-year-old Army wife, the presence of Afghans and their families is just another unwelcome strain on an already difficult daily life. 'I've got huge concerns about the influx,' she said as cradled her young daughter in her arms outside Larkhill Camp's bustling convenience store. 'The way the Government moved them here is not integration. It's putting us against each other.'
France 24
6 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
Thousands of Afghans and families brought to UK after data breach: minister
Defence Minister John Healey unveiled the scheme to parliament after the UK High Court on Tuesday lifted a super-gag order banning reports of the events. In February 2022 a spreadsheet containing the names and details of almost 19,000 Afghans who had asked to be relocated to Britain was accidentally leaked by a UK official just six months after the Taliban seized Kabul, Healey said. "This was a serious departmental error," Healey said, adding "lives may have been at stake". The previous Conservative government put in place a secret programme to help those "judged to be at the highest risk of reprisals by the Taliban", he said. Some 900 Afghans and 3,600 family members have now been brought to Britain or are in transit under the programme known as the Afghan Response Route at a cost of around £400 million, Healey said. They are among some 36,000 Afghans who have been accepted by Britain under different schemes since the August 2021 fall of Kabul. As Labour's opposition defence spokesman Healey was briefed on the scheme in December 2023, but the Conservative government asked a court to impose a "super-injunction" banning any mention of it in parliament or by the press. When Labour came to power in July 2024, the scheme was in full swing, but Healey said he had been "deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House". "Ministers decided not to tell parliamentarians at an earlier stage about the data incident, as the widespread publicity would increase the risk of the Taliban obtaining the dataset," he added. Healey set up a review of the scheme on becoming defence minister in the new Labour government. This concluded there was "very little intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution". © 2025 AFP
