Defence secretary revealed sensitive Afghan data breach details – but media still banned from reporting it
The delicate details exposed by the Great Afghan data violation, which risks tens of thousands of people, appeared by the defense secretary – but the media is still banned from reporting them.
John Healey presented a “sincere apology için on behalf of the British government for a major leak that could be reported after a two -year struggle to remove an unprecedented sutergivity, who shared information about Afghans who wanted to escape to England because of their connections to British troops.
However, in his speech to the MPs, Mr. Heal explained the details that the media still could not publish, because a solid second Gaging order remained in place.
Including media organizations IndependentThey are trying to overthrow this order in the Supreme Court, which will allow the disclosure of the previously kept information.
In February 2022, a violation by a Ministry of Defense officials triggered a secret government operation that saw that 16,000 Afghan was released to England.
All operations were kept secret from the MPs and the people, after the ministers decided to hide the real cause of evacuation from the parliament, after claiming that the release of mode could name the database under the risk of retaliation from the Taliban.
The abolition of Superinjunction on Tuesday called for more investigations after an official examination of the data leakage of the Supreme Court Judge Justice Judge Justice Chamberlain, Superinjonction, “basically weakened the evidence foundation” on the data leak.
Including media organizations Independent, Daily mail And TimesHe was shot with a new precautionary precaution on Tuesday, which forbidden to talk about certain information, feared that he could risk national security.
However, despite the MOD lawyers who argued that information should never be shared, Mr. Healey explained some details to the MPs in Parliament.
Mr Justice Chamberlain called on an urgent hearing on Tuesday to discuss whether the second precautionary measure had to be removed.
At a public hearing, the court said that MOD lawyers wanted to remain in place, arguing that the publication of information will result in “harm to national security”.
“Mod asked for time to produce evidence … I have reached a temporary opinion that evidence should be produced very quickly if it is to be produced,” he added.
The judge has now given the media defendants to try to agree on which information can be published and what should be confidential.
