Connect with us

Published

on

On March 5, San Franciscans will have the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would decide whether or not to make them into guinea pigs for surveillance experiments by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD).

Proposition E purports to streamline the SFPD, with sections on community engagement, recordkeeping, and the department’s vehicle pursuit and use of force policies. But its portion on department use of surveillance technology is troubling.

Under an existing ordinance passed in 2019, the SFPD may only use “surveillance technologies”like surveillance cameras, automatic license plate readers, or cell site simulatorsthat have been approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the city and county legislative body. The process requires that the SFPD, like any other city or county agency, submit a policy to the board for approval before using any new technology. The 2019 ordinance also banned the use of facial recognition technology.

But Prop E adds a clause stipulating that the SFPD “may acquire and/or use a Surveillance Technology so long as it submits a Surveillance Technology Policy to the Board of Supervisors for approval by ordinance within one year of the use or acquisition, and may continue to use that Surveillance Technology after the end of that year unless the Board adopts an ordinance that disapproves the Policy.”

In other words, the SFPD could roll out an unapproved method of surveillance, and it would have free rein to operate within the city for up to a year before ever having to ask city officials for permission. And until the city passes a statute that specifically forbids itthat is, forbidding a technology that is by that point already in usethen the SFPD can keep using it indefinitely.

“Let’s say the SFPD decides they want to buy a bunch of data on people’s geolocation from data brokersthey could do that,” says Saira Hussain, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). “They could use drones that are flying at all times above the city. They could use the robot dogs that were piloted at the border. These are all surveillance technologies that the police doesn’t necessarily have right now, and they could acquire it and use it, effectively without any sort of accountability, under this proposition.”

If those scenarios sound implausible, it’s worth noting that they’ve already happened: As Hussain notes, the Department of Homeland Security recently tested robot dogs to help patrol the U.S./Mexico border. And in 2012, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department enlisted civilian aircraft to fly over Compton and surveil the entire area.

Not to mention, federal agencies already routinely purchase people’s cell phone geolocation information and internet metadata without a warrant.

In a sense, Prop E would make San Franciscans into guinea pigs, on whom the SFPD can experiment with all manner of surveillance technology. If that sounds hyperbolic, a member of Mayor London Breed’s staff told the board of supervisors in November 2023 that Prop E “authorizes the department to have a one-year pilot period to experiment, to work through new technology to see how they work.”

The San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee’s description of the proposition notes that it would “authorize the SFPD to use drones and install surveillance cameras without Commission or Board approval, including those with facial recognition technology.”

The ACLU of Northern California calls Prop E “a dangerous and misleading proposal that knocks down three pillars of police reform: oversight, accountability, and transparency.” Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at the EFF, wrote that under Prop E, police could “expose already marginalized and over-surveilled communities to a new and less accountable generation of surveillance technologies.”

Despite these concerns, Prop E has its share of support. Breed defended the proposal, saying “it’s about making sure that our police department, like any other police department around the country, can use 21st century technology.” By January, groups supporting Prop E had raised more than $1 millionten times the amount raised by opponents and considerably more than has been raised for any other proposal on the March ballot.

It also seems to be popular among the public: A January survey released by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce found that 61 percent of San Franciscans favored Prop E, with only 37 percent opposed. (One possible explanation: The same survey found that 69 percent of those polled feel that crime has gotten worse. Recent data indicates that violent crime rose during 2023 even as it declined nationally, and while the rate of property crime fell, state and national rates fell faster.)

San Francisco is no stranger to potentially abusive surveillance practices. In 2022, the board of supervisors passed an ordinance that would allow the SFPD to request and receive real-time access to citizens’ private security camera feeds. While city officials like Breed and newly-appointed District Attorney Brooke Jenkins touted that the ordinance would help crack down on smash-and-grab shoplifting rings, a recent city report detailed that in the third quarter of 2023, the vast majority of requests were for narcotics investigations.

Continue Reading

World

Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach

Published

on

By

Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach

Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a superinjunction.

The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families – with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total.

The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday – three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.

Politics latest: Minister sorry after ‘extraordinary secrecy’ concealed data leak

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure.

However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn.

In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction.

Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Defence secretary on Afghan leak

Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle.

Defence Secretary John Healey offered a “sincere apology” for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.

He said he had felt “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency” around the data breach, adding: “No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.”

The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 – which can only now be revealed – to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.

Some 6,900 Afghans – comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents – are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.

Afghan co-workers and their families board a C-130J plane of the South Korean Air Force at an airport in Kabul during an evacuation operation. Pic: South Korean Defense Ministry/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock
Image:
Afghan co-workers and their families board a plane during the Kabul airlift in August 2021. Pic: South Korean Defense Ministry/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach.

The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents.

Read more:
‘My family is finished’: Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

Analysis: Retreat from Afghanistan began as a farce, then it was a scandal, now it’s a cover-up

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported.

How did the data breach happen?

The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021.

Hundreds of people gather some holding documents, near an evacuation control checkpoint on the perimeter of the Hamid Karzai International Airport, in Kabul. Pic: AP
Image:
People gathered desperately near evacuation control checkpoints during the crisis. Pic: AP

Hundreds of people gather near an evacuation control checkpoint outside the airport at Hamid Karzai International Airport, in Kabul. Pic: AP
Image:
The evacuation at Kabul airport was chaotic. Pic: AP

The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor.

A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach.

It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list – only that the MoD lost control of the information.

Taliban members are seen on the second anniversary of the fall of Kabul on a street near the US embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 15, 2023. REUTERS/Ali Khara
Image:
Taliban members on the second anniversary of the fall of Kabul. Pic: Reuters

Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: “This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public.

“It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region.

“A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups.”

The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted “to pursue potential legal action”.

Read more:
British couple held in Afghanistan
ICC prosecutor calls for arrest of Taliban duo

It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list – about 10 to 15% – would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).

The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.

A superinjunction – preventing the reporting of the mistake – was imposed in September of that year.

It meant the extraordinary – and costly – plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government inherited the scandal.

What is a superinjunction?

In UK law, a superinjunction prevents the publication of certain information.

However, unlike a regular injunction, it also prevents the media from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself.

Superinjunctions can only be granted by the high court, with applicants required to meet stringent legal tests of necessity, proportionality and the risk of serious harm.

They are most commonly used in cases involving breaches of privacy, confidential business information, or where there is a risk of significant reputational damage.

Why was superinjunction lifted?

An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant.

It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban.

The review said it was “unlikely to substantially change an individual’s existing exposure given the volume of data already available”.

It also concluded that “it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting” and it is “therefore also unlikely that family members… will be targeted simply because the ‘principal’ appears… in the dataset”.

This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted.

Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach.

He added: “Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service.

“We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives.”

Latest MoD data breach

While the MoD’s data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first.

Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened.

Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021.

In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the “egregious” breach could have been life-threatening.

Continue Reading

World

‘My family is finished’: Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

Published

on

By

'My family is finished': Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

An Afghan man who worked for the British military has told Sky News he feels betrayed and “completely lost (his) mind” after his identity formed part of a massive data breach.

He told The World with Yalda Hakim about the moment he discovered he was among thousands of Afghans whose personal details were revealed, putting him at risk of reprisals from the Taliban.

The man, who spoke anonymously to Sky News from Afghanistan, says that for more than 10 years he worked for British forces

But now he says he regrets working alongside troops, who were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Afghans being relocated after data breach

“I have done everything for the British forces… I regret that – why (did) I put my family in danger because of that? Is this is justice?

“We work for them, for [the] British, we help them. So now we are left behind, right now. And from today, I don’t know about my future.”

He described receiving an email warning him that his details had been revealed.

He said: “When I saw this one story… I completely lost my mind. I just thought… about my future… my family’s.

“I’ve got two kids. All my family are… in danger. Right now… I’m just completely lost.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The mistake by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022 ranks among the worst security breaches in modern British history because of the cost and risk posed to the lives of thousands of Afghans.

On Tuesday, a court order – preventing the media reporting details of a secret relocation programme – was lifted.

Read more from Sky News:
Minister defends handling of breach
The struggle for equality in Afghanistan
Afghan women throw babies to troops

Defence Secretary John Healey said about 6,900 Afghans and their family members have been relocated or were on their way to the UK under the previously secret scheme.

He said no one else from Afghanistan would be offered asylum, after a government review found little evidence of intent from the Taliban to seek retribution.

But the anonymous Afghan man who spoke to Sky News disputed this. He claimed the Taliban, who returned to power in 2021, were actively seeking people who worked with British forces.

“My family is finished,” he said. “I request… kindly request from the British government… the King… please evacuate us.

“Maybe tomorrow we will not be anymore. Please, please help us.”

Continue Reading

US

Trump to ‘refine trade deal’ with UK during Scotland trip

Published

on

By

Trump to 'refine trade deal' with UK during Scotland trip

Donald Trump has said he will “refine the trade deal” with the UK during his private trip to Scotland later this month.

The US president told reporters outside the White House on Tuesday that he will meet with Sir Keir Starmer “probably in Aberdeen”.

Politics latest: Reeves committed to ‘non-negotiable’ fiscal rules

Mr Trump is expected to travel to Scotland in the coming weeks to visit his golf courses ahead of an official state visit in September.

“We’re going to be meeting with the British prime minister, very respectful, and we are going to have a meeting with him, probably in Aberdeen, and we’re going to do a lot of different things.

“We’re going to also refine the trade deal that we’ve made.

“So we’ll be meeting mostly […] at probably one of my properties, or maybe not, depending on what happens, but we’ll be in Aberdeen, in Scotland, meeting with the prime minister.”

Donald Trump speaks to reporters outside the White House. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Donald Trump speaks to reporters outside the White House. Pic: Reuters

The UK and US signed a trade deal earlier this year that reduced car and aerospace tariffs, but questions have remained about a promise from Washington to slash steel tariffs.

In May, the White House said it would exempt the UK from plans for a 25% tariff on global steel imports but that is yet to be ratified and the levy has since been doubled on all other countries.

Mr Trump had insisted that unless Britain could finalise the details of a metals trade deal with the US by 9 July, when wider “Liberation Day” tariff pauses were expected to expire, he would slap the UK with a 50% rate as well.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who will be positively impacted by the UK-US trade deal?

However that pause was extended until 1 August, with the US president saying nations would instead get letters informing them of his plans.

As Sky News’ economics and data editor Ed Conway has reported, the metals deal has floundered on two key issues, including that while the government has taken control of British Steel, the company itself still legally has Chinese owners.

Downing Street is still hoping it can secure 0% tariffs on steel.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

On Tuesday, a Downing Street spokesperson played down the significance of the meeting in Scotland, stressing it was a private trip so it “will not be a formal bilateral”.

Since taking office in January, Mr Trump has imposed tariffs on countries across the world in a bid to boost domestic production and address trade deficits.

Read more:
Trump threatens to revoke US comedian’s citizenship
Meet volunteers leading fight against Trump’s immigration raids

As well as sector specific tariffs, there is a baseline tariff of 10% for most other imports, though some countries face higher rates.

The UK was the first to hash out a deal on exemptions after a successful charm offensive by Sir Keir.

Mr Trump has praised the PM, telling the BBC earlier on Tuesday: “I really like the prime minister a lot, even though he’s a liberal.”

There are also plans for Scottish First Minister John Swinney to meet Mr Trump during his trip.

It will be followed by the official state visit between 17-19 September, when Mr Trump will be hosted by the King and Queen at Windsor Castle and accompanied by his wife Melania.

It will be Mr Trump’s second state visit to the UK, having previously been hosted during his first term in 2019.

Continue Reading

Trending