The United States has begun investigating Brazil’s trade practices and “anti-corruption interference,” after the president’s criticisms of Brazil’s treatment of Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally.
Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said he was beginning the investigation “into Brazil’s attacks on American social media companies as well as other unfair trading practices that harm American companies, workers, farmers and technology innovators.”
The university plans to offer additional anti-discrimination training in partnership with Jewish organizations. Some other measures could prove controversial.
Claire Shipman, the acting president of Columbia University, said in a letter to the campus on Tuesday that committing to reform “will better enable us to recognize our shortcomings and create lasting change.”
Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, demanded “accountability for this criminal and terrorist act,” referring to the killing last week of Sayfollah Musallet in the occupied territories.
Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, urged Israel to “aggressively investigate” the death of a Palestinian-American in a clash in the West Bank.
Bradley Murdoch, the Australian man convicted of murdering British backpacker Peter Falconio in 2001, has died.
Murdoch, 67, was serving a life sentence at a prison in Alice Springs, in Australia's Northern Territory.
He was being treated at hospital in Alice Springs in recent weeks for terminal throat cancer.
The Northern Territory Department of Corrections told the BBC there had been a death of a man in custody.
In 2005, Murdoch was convicted of murdering Mr Falconio, but had never revealed the location of his body.
Mr Falconio was shot dead on a remote stretch of highway near the Northern Territory town of Barrow Creek, about 300km (186 miles) north of Alice Springs in July 2001.
The 28-year-old was travelling around Australia with his girlfriend, Joanne Lees, also from the UK, at the time.
Murdoch was also convicted of the attempted kidnap and assault of Ms Lees, who managed to escape by hiding in outback scrub for several hours before she was able to signal for help.
Murdoch was 43 when he committed the crimes.
The ordeal partly inspired the 2001 horror film Wolf Creek.
Last month police in Australia announced a new reward of up to A$500,000 (£240,000) for information leading to the discovery of the remains of the murdered British backpacker.
Acting Commander Mark Grieve of Northern Territory Police told a press conference in late June: "Police still hold out hope that someone might be able to provide some vital information to assist in this search."
"We recognise the passage of time that has transpired but it is never to late to reach out and start that conversation with police," Grieve said.
He said in that press conference police had "made numerous approaches" to Murdoch, including in June, but said that "unfortunately... on all occasions he has chosen not to engage with police".
Acting Commander Grieve said he wanted to "try and at least bring some sliver of resolution to Peter's family by bringing home his remains" - and said they had spoken to family about the reward.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.
Counter-terror police have warned the activity of hostile states on British soil is posing a growing threat and urged families to watch for signs their children are being manipulated.
Teenagers, along with petty criminals and disillusioned people, may be more vulnerable to recruitment by Russia, Iran and China, they warned.
Hostile states are increasingly using proxies to carry out acts of sabotage and targeted violence in the UK, counter-terror police said, adding that investigating such activity now accounts for about 20% of their workload.
Parents and teachers should "be inquisitive" and "seek help" if they think a child is at risk, police advised.
Since the Salisbury poisonings in 2018 – which targeted Russian double agent Sergei Skripal – there has been a five-fold increase in police work to tackle hostile activity, commanders said.
"The breadth, complexity and volume of these operations has continued to grow at a rate that I'm not sure that us, or our partners internationally, or any intelligence community predicted," Dominic Murphy, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter-Terrorism Command, told reporters.
"We are increasingly seeing these three states, but not just these three states, undertaking threat to life operations in the United Kingdom."
The youngest person arrested or investigated on suspicion of involvement is aged in their "mid-teens", he added.
Vicki Evans, Counter Terrorism Policing's senior national co-ordinator, expressed concern other children may be encouraged online to carry out activities to earn money, without realising the implications of their actions.
"We really encourage people, parents, teachers, professionals just to be inquisitive," she said.
"If they're concerned, ask those questions, and if they think there's something they need to be concerned about, seek help and act, because we want to make sure that we're protecting people from inadvertently being drawn into this sort of activity."
The Metropolitan Police is now putting additional resources into tackling hostile state activity, with training for officers in "foreign interference" and hundreds taking part in recent exercises in how to respond.
"We're working with local force chiefs up and down the country to raise awareness and ensure that there really is an increased understanding about this threat," Ms Evans said.
Police said the attack had been ordered by Russia's Wagner group, and that one of the ringleaders, 21-year-old Dylan Earl, had been plotting to kidnap its owner, a Russian dissident.
Metropolitan Police
Small-time drug dealer Dylan Earl, left, and Jake Reeves were among the group that carried out the arson attack
The Met said it was also dealing with a "high volume" of threats from Iran, focused on those considered to be opponents of the Islamic Republic.
"We know that they are continuing to try and sow violence on the streets of the United Kingdom, they too are to some extent relying on criminal proxies to do that," Mr Murphy said.
The use of criminal proxies offers "arms-length deniability," according to Ms Evans, who blames the rising threat on the "continued erosion of the rule-based international order".
The warnings came in the first specific briefing for journalists from counter-terrorism police on the threat of hostile state activity.
"Foreign regimes are more willing than ever to undertake aggressive actions overseas," Ms Evans said.
Watch: 1979 news report on the assassination of President Park Chung-hee
Two gunshots.
That is how Yoo Seok-sul begins recounting the night of Friday, 26 October, 1979.
A former security guard in the Korea Central Intelligence Agency, or KCIA, as the South's spy division was known, Yoo has many stories to tell. But this is perhaps the most infamous.
He remembers the time - nearly 19:40 - and where he had been sitting - in the break room. He was resting after his shift guarding the entrance to the low-rise compound where President Park Chung-hee entertained his most trusted lieutenants. They called it the "safe house".
In his 70s now, wiry with sharp eyes, Yoo speaks hesitantly at first - but it comes back to him quickly. After the first shots, more gunfire followed, he says. The guards were on high alert but they waited outside for orders. The president's security detail was inside, along with the KCIA's top agents.
Then Yoo's boss, a KCIA officer who oversaw security for the safe house, stepped outside. "He came over and asked me to bury something in the garden." It was two guns, bullets and a pair of shoes. Flustered, Yoo followed orders, he says.
He did not know who had been shot, and he didn't ask.
"I never imagined that it was the president."
National Archives of Korea
Kim Jae-kyu in military court during the trial in 1979
The guns Yoo buried were used to assassinate Park Chung-hee, who had ruled South Korea for the previous 18 years, longer than any president before or since. The man who shot him was his long-time friend Kim Jae-gyu, who ran the much-feared KCIA, a pillar of Park's dictatorship.
That Friday shook South Korea, ending Park Chung-hee's stifling rule and ushering in another decade under the military. Kim was executed for insurrection, along with five others.
Now, 46 years later, that night is back in the spotlight as a court retries Kim Jae-gyu to determine if his actions amounted to treason. He has remained a deeply polarising figure - some see him as a killer blinded by power and ambition, others as a patriot who sacrificed himself to set South Korea on the path to democracy. The president he killed is no less divisive, lauded for his country's economic rise and reviled for his authoritarian rule.
Kim's family fought for the retrial, arguing that he cannot be remembered as a traitor. They will now have their day in the Seoul High Court just as impeached president Yoon Suk Yeol goes on trial for the same charge that sent Kim to the gallows.
Yoon's martial law order last December was short-lived but it threw up questions about South Korean democracy - and that may influence how the country sees a man who shot dead a dictator he claimed was on the brink of unleashing carnage.
Was Kim trying to seize power for himself or to spark a revolution, as he claimed in court?
Getty Images
Park Chung-hee ruled South Korea for 18 years
When news of the shooting broke in the morning, it sent shockwaves through South Korea. Initial reports called it "accidental".
What was left of Park's coterie tried to make sense of what had happened. Kim had been a close ally since Park seized power in a coup in 1961. They shared a hometown and had started out together at the military academy.
Veteran journalist Cho Gab-je acknowledges that Kim seemed uncomfortable with some of Park's actions, but "there's no record that Kim actually acted on those concerns, no evidence he released political prisoners, clashed with Park, or submitted formal objections".
Kim told the court he had thought about killing Park at least three times. But history shows he supported Park as he tightened his grip, abolishing direct presidential elections and term limits, allowing him to control the National Assembly and even suspend constitutional rights.
"My brother was never the kind of person who would commit such an act just to become president," insists his sister Kim Jung-sook, who is now 86.
But he ran the KCIA, which was notorious for jailing, torturing and even framing innocent students, dissidents and opposition figures with false charges.
"They tortured people, fabricated charges, and imprisoned them… and if you criticised that, you'd get arrested too," says Father Ham Se-woong, who was imprisoned twice in the 1970s for criticising the government.
Kim was not a saviour many could accept. But that is the mantle he took on, according to court transcripts that were not widely reported at the time. He told the judges he believed it was imperative to stop Park, whose ruthlessness could plunge South Korea into chaos and cost them a critical ally, the United States.
"I do not wish to beg for my life, as I have found a cause to die for," he said, although he asked the court to spare his men who followed his orders - "innocent sheep", he called them. He said he had hoped to pave the way for a peaceful transition of power, which had eluded his country so far.
On hearing about this back then, even a fierce critic like Father Ham tried launching a campaign for him. "He wanted to prevent further bloodshed. That's why we had to save him," he says.
Father Ham ended up in prison again for his efforts, as the trial became a sensitive subject. The country was under martial law. Days after the trial started - on December 12 - the man who led the investigation into the assassination, General Chun Doo-hwan, seized power in a coup.
Suhnwook Lee/ BBC News
Kim Jung-sook has been fighting for years for a retrial of her brother's case
Proceedings in the military court moved at lightning speed. On 20 December, it convicted Kim of trying to seize power through murder, and six others of aiding him. Yoo was sentenced to three years in prison for hiding the guns.
By 20 May the following year, Kim had lost his final appeal. Four days later he was hanged, along with three others. One was spared and another had been executed earlier. Kim died as the army brutally suppressed a pro-democracy uprising, killing 166 civilians in the city of Gwangju.
"I got the impression that Chun Doo-hwan was trying to quickly wrap up anything related to the previous regime in order to seize power for himself," says Kim Jung-sook.
She says she saw her brother just once through all this, a week before he was executed: "I think he sensed it might be the last time. So he bowed deeply to my mother as a goodbye."
Yoo survived but he says after he was free, he was followed for years: "I couldn't get a job. Even when I returned to my hometown, they kept tailing me. I couldn't say a word about the case." He now works as an attendant in a private parking lot outside Seoul.
Ms Kim says her family did not speak up until about 10 years ago. After South Korea became a democracy, Park's image recovered, improved by time and wealth. His daughter became president, often defending his legacy for its economic record.
It was her downfall - following massive protests over a corruption scandal - that threw open the door to revisit Kim Jae-gyu's conviction.
National Archives of Korea
Kim Jae-gyu (L) and Park Chung-hee were close friends
"This case should never have gone to a military court because the assassination happened before martial law was declared," says Lee Sang-hee, the lawyer in charge of his retrial. She adds that the "sloppy transcripts" would have influenced his appeal because the defence was not allowed to record the proceedings.
"When I reviewed the documents, I couldn't understand how he could be convicted of insurrection when there was such little evidence. And above all, there was torture," she says, which the court cited as a valid reason when it agreed in February to a retrial.
It accepted Kim's statement, which he submitted in his unsuccessful appeal in 1980, alleging "the investigators beat me indiscriminately and used electric torture by wrapping an EE8 phone line around my fingers".
Reports at the time alleged that Kim Jae-gyu's wife had been detained and tortured too, along with her brother-in-law and brothers, which officials at the time denied.
Now in her 90s, his wife has always been opposed to a retrial.
"She never talked about what she had gone through and trembles even now," Kim Jung-sook, the spy chief's sister, says.
Ms Kim is resolute in her defence of her brother, repeatedly emphasising that "he was a man of integrity".
"Because we believe that he did not kill the president and his security chief for personal gain, we have been able to endure all of this."
Kim family
Kim Jae-gyu is the first man standing from the left in this old family photo
The security chief was Cha Ji-cheol, who had been growing closer to Park, and often clashed with Kim as the two men vied for the president's ear.
In the weeks before the assassination, they differed on how to deal with Kim Young-sam, an outspoken opposition leader who Park saw as a threat. In an interview with the New York Times, the opposition leader had called on the US to end Park's dictatorship. The National Assembly, controlled by Park, expelled him.
The decision kicked off huge protests in Kim Young-Sam's strongholds. Cha wanted to crush the uprising, while Kim Jae-gyu advised caution, which would also reassure a Washington that was growing impatient with Park's rule.
Kim told the court he warned against firing at protesters, which would only ignite anger - to which Cha said, "three million died in Cambodia, and nothing happened. If we kill one million demonstrators, we'll be fine".
That evening at the safe house, the public broadcaster reported that the US ambassador was going to meet Kim Young-sam.
An angry Park criticised Kim Jae-gyu for not arresting the opposition leader. When Kim pushed back, the court heard, Park retorted: "The agency should be feared, it should prosecute those who deserve it."
Alamy
Kim holding a gun as he re-enacts the scene of the shooting, while investigating officers watch
They sat across from each other, sipping Scotch and sharing a meal. Park sat between two women, a popular singer and a young model. Cha and Park's chief of staff were also there.
The terse exchanges continued, and mid-way through a love song, Kim Jae-gyu said, he pulled out the gun, aimed it at Park and told him he needed to change his politics:"Sir, you should approach things with a more magnanimous vision - so this is not just about you."
Turning to a shocked Cha, he cursed as he pulled the trigger, wounding him in the hand as Cha tried to block the shot. Then Kim fired into Park's chest. Outside, acting on his orders, KCIA agents shot dead the president's security detail - two were eating dinner, and two were on standby.
Kim tried shooting the president again, but the pistol malfunctioned. He ran out to one of his men, who gave him a revolver. Having returned, he killed Cha a fleeing Cha, walked towards Park, who was leaning against the model as he bled, and shot him in the head.
The two women left unharmed after being paid to keep quiet. The president's chief of staff was never targeted.
Kim then went to the next building, where the army chief he had summoned earlier was waiting. The men left in a car for KCIA headquarters.
It's likely he didn't argue with Kim - even a shoe-less, suspiciously rattled Kim was powerful, and his men guarded the compound. But en route he was persuaded to go to army headquarters, where he was arrested soon after midnight.
Kim told the court he had planned to use the army, perhaps even impose martial law, to complete the "revolution" and transition to democracy.
This is the crux of the retrial. The prosecution had argued it was a premeditated coup, while Kim claimed far loftier motives.
But sceptics point to the lack of planning. The gun that jammed was plucked from a safe before dinner, there were enough witnesses to derail the plot, and he did not seem to have a strategy for his "revolution". He did not even make it to the KCIA headquarters.
Alamy
Kim Jae-gyu during the trial
They say it may well have been an impulsive act of revenge by a man whose power was waning.
That's what the army general investigating the murders alleged two days later - Kim, second only to the president, had so much to lose as Park sidelined him in favour of Cha Ji-cheol.
The following month, he also charged Kim with attempting a coup.
"For a charge of insurrection to be proved, the accused must forcibly halt the function of constitutional institutions, but that didn't happen in this case," says lawyer Lee Sang-hee.
Unlike in impeached president Yoon's case - where the court will decide if he directed the military to block parliamentary proceedings - there is no evidence Kim Jae-gyu tried to seize control of state institutions, she argues.
For South Korea though, the retrial is more than that. Many see it as a defining moment to reflect on the trajectory of a democracy threatened just six months ago.
It is also an opportunity to re-evaluate Park Chung-hee, whose legacy some say is overstated. "His achievements were real, but so were his faults," says Kim Duol, an economics professor at Myungji University. "Would South Korea's growth have been possible without such an authoritarian regime?"
Kim's family hopes his retrial will shed a kinder light on his legacy. Killing Park was "a painful decision", Kim had told the court, but he had "shot at the heart of Yusin [the regime] with the heart of a wild beast".
Is that enough to make the former spy chief a hero? That is a question the court cannot answer.
The music supervisor was found shot to death in a home in Los Angeles with her husband, Thomas Deluca, the police said. A 22-year-old was arrested in connection with the case.
Stormy weather in New York City on Monday. A few lingering showers are expected across parts of the New York City area, New Jersey, Long Island and southern Connecticut on Tuesday.
Bradley Murdoch, the Australian man convicted of murdering British backpacker Peter Falconio in 2001, has died.
Murdoch, 67, was serving a life sentence at a prison in Alice Springs, in Australia's Northern Territory.
He was being treated at hospital in Alice Springs in recent weeks for terminal throat cancer.
The Northern Territory Department of Corrections told the BBC there had been a death of a man in custody.
In 2005, Murdoch was convicted of murdering Mr Falconio, but had never revealed the location of his body.
Mr Falconio was shot dead on a remote stretch of highway near the Northern Territory town of Barrow Creek, about 300km (186 miles) north of Alice Springs in July 2001.
The 28-year-old was travelling around Australia with his girlfriend, Joanne Lees, also from the UK, at the time.
Murdoch was also convicted of the attempted kidnap and assault of Ms Lees, who managed to escape by hiding in outback scrub for several hours before she was able to signal for help.
Murdoch was 43 when he committed the crimes.
The ordeal partly inspired the 2001 horror film Wolf Creek.
Last month police in Australia announced a new reward of up to A$500,000 (£240,000) for information leading to the discovery of the remains of the murdered British backpacker.
Acting Commander Mark Grieve of Northern Territory Police told a press conference in late June: "Police still hold out hope that someone might be able to provide some vital information to assist in this search."
"We recognise the passage of time that has transpired but it is never to late to reach out and start that conversation with police," Grieve said.
He said in that press conference police had "made numerous approaches" to Murdoch, including in June, but said that "unfortunately... on all occasions he has chosen not to engage with police".
Acting Commander Grieve said he wanted to "try and at least bring some sliver of resolution to Peter's family by bringing home his remains" - and said they had spoken to family about the reward.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.
UN ambassador nominee Mike Waltz asked about Signal chat leak
Donald Trump's former national security adviser Mike Waltz has faced scrutiny from US senators over his role in a sensitive Signal group chat in which officials discussed sensitive war plans.
Waltz appeared before a hearing on Tuesday seeking Senate confirmation as Trump's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, following his removal from his former post in May.
Under questioning from Democrats, Waltz maintained he did not share classified information in the chat, which accidentally included a journalist.
The March incident, which became known as "Signalgate", threw the White House into turmoil and sparked a debate about the administration's cybersecurity.
Waltz convened the group chat on Signal that also included Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as several other top administration officials to discuss an imminent strike on the Houthi rebel group in Yemen.
Amid the fallout, Waltz appeared on Fox News to take "full responsibility" for building the group chat, adding that it was "embarrassing". Waltz and the White House have maintained no classified information was shared in the chat.
Despite opposition from some Democrats, he will likely be confirmed since Republicans hold a majority in the US Senate.
At the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said he hoped to hear Waltz express "regret over sharing what was very sensitive, timely information about a military strike on a commercially available app."
Signal was not "an appropriate, secure means of communicating highly sensitive information," Senator Coons said.
"That engagement was driven by and recommended by the Cyber Security Infrastructure Security Agency, by the Biden administration," Waltz responded. He argued that the use of Signal was "not only authorised" but "highly recommended."
"This was demonstrably sensitive information," Senator Coons said, and asked Waltz if he was investigated for the expansion of the Signal group to include a journalist.
"The White House conducted an investigation and my understanding is the Department of Defence is still conducting an investigation," Waltz responded.
Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, also asked Waltz whether the Pentagon investigations into Secretary Hegseth were ongoing.
Waltz responded that he should not, and could not, comment on an ongoing investigation but maintained no classified information was shared.
Murmurs, a Trump post and a surprise - How Waltz's removal unfolded
In contrast, Waltz's fellow Republicans on the committee largely avoided the Signal matter, instead focusing on US funding to the United Nations and asking how he would engage with China's rising influence.
Senator Rick Scott, a Florida Republican who once served alongside Waltz in the US House of Representatives, called him a "man of integrity, grit, and principle."
Waltz's nomination to be the US's lead envoy at the UN comes amid international uncertainty about America's role on the world stage and the strength of its commitments to foreign allies.
The position would play a key role in representing US interests abroad at a time when the Trump administration has slashed billions in foreign aid and fired thousands of staffers at the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Senator Mike Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, asked Waltz about his "commitment to reviewing every dollar going to the UN to ensure our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely."
In response, Waltz listed a series of international organisations and projects that he said the US helped fund that he believed deserved review, including several climate-focused entities like the UN Environment Programme, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and more.
"I think it is incumbent on this administration to say, what's it doing, is it making us safer, stronger, and more prosperous, and are we getting enough bang for our buck," Waltz said.
The 148th separate artillery brigade of Air Assault Forces fire a French 155-millimeter self-propelled howitzer at a Russian target in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine in April.
President Trump mobilized the troops on June 7 in the wake of chaotic protests. They have remained in Southern California several weeks after most of the demonstrations had ended.
Mr. Cuomo, the former governor of New York, has vowed to run a more energetic campaign than he did in the mayoral primary, and aimed to demonstrate that on Tuesday.
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo used a campaign tour on Tuesday to kick off his mission to improve upon what he acknowledged was a lackluster primary campaign for mayor.
The past weeks have put serious pressure on Tim Davie's leadership. Today, I saw that up close.
For a usually very slick performer, he looked shaken. I wanted to know if he had considered resigning in the face of the recent controversies. He said he had not, but admitted it had been "a very, very tough time".
Earlier Davie had launched the BBC's annual report on Zoom, with journalists remotely asking questions in the Q&A box and no cameras allowed into the room for us to record and use his answers.
We were considering making clear to our audiences that - on such an important day for the BBC - nobody from the top of the corporation was being put in front of a camera to be interviewed on a range of issues, which were both of public interest and specifically relevant to licence fee payers.
I usually interview the director general at times of crisis for the BBC. That's the way these things work. To be fair to him, he always makes it clear that my job is to ask him questions without fear or favour. He knows part of his job is to be held to account.
His leadership has been called into question, not least recently by the culture secretary. She called it a "series of catastrophic failures".
'I felt pressure'
It was obvious today it had been taking its toll. As director general, he's insistent and wholehearted in his defence of the BBC and his role leading that. But as a man, you can sense the last weeks have been testing.
His interview style is to look straight at the person doing the interview. He usually measures his words carefully, although today, on a couple of points he was a little less fluent. Some of his answers - for example when he was talking about he and his team making "clear, strong decisions" in the face of challenges - sounded a bit rehearsed.
However, an unexpected by-product of him sounding less confident was that he also managed to sound, at times, more human. The last week has clearly left him frustrated and for once, he let that show. There was no hiding it when he said rather plainly: "I felt pressure".
It brings to mind the recent public debate about Rachel Reeves and her tears in the Commons. Whatever we think of the decisions made by those in public service, what impact does it have on them as people when they are under such intense scrutiny. Should that even matter?
But they don't call him Teflon Tim for nothing - and he survives, for the moment. Even if he is wounded.
The BBC today was signalling it is getting a grip on bad behaviour in the workplace. It's something Samir Shah, chairman of the BBC, promised after the Huw Edwards scandal.
Now Gregg Wallace is gone, John Torode is gone. Three staff members have been asked to "step back" from their roles after Glastonbury. And we've now learnt that several people have been sacked in light of the BBC's culture review.
The clear messaging: Teflon Tim and his team are getting tough.
It has been more than three years since a British official inadvertently leaked a dataset containing the names and contact details of thousands of people who were attempting to flee possible Taliban revenge attacks.
In April 2024, the government began relocating some of them to the UK - but we are only learning this now because extraordinary lengths were gone to in order to prevent the breach and subsequent response coming to light.
As the full picture is finally disclosed to the public, these are the questions still facing Britain's security establishment.
What can be done about the danger of leaks?
It has happened before and it will doubtless happen again.
Think Wikileaks, Snowden and all the countless cyber-hacks and ransomware suffered by companies on an almost daily basis.
Data leaks are not new but sometimes – and it is quite possible that this is one of those times – they can be life-threatening.
The revelations that have come to light will have sent a chill down the spine of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Afghans who fear retribution by the Taliban.
For those already spirited out to Britain, it means they can probably never go back home as long as the Taliban are in power.
For the 600 former Afghan government soldiers and their estimated 1,800 dependants still in Afghanistan, the news will mean they are unlikely to breathe easily until the UK delivers on its promise to get them safely out.
It's important to bear in mind that all this was not the result of some deliberate, sophisticated cyber attack by a state-backed hacking group.
It evolved from an unintentional mistake made by just one individual working for the Ministry of Defence.
What does this say about Britain's moral responsibility?
UK forces were deployed to Afghanistan, alongside US and Nato allies, over a period of almost 20 years, from October 2001 to August 2021.
During this time they worked closely with their Afghan government allies, relying heavily on their local knowledge and expertise.
The most sensitive area was in Special Forces (SF), for whom the Taliban reserved a particular hatred.
When Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in the summer of 202, there was a realisation that those now-former Afghan SF soldiers and their families were a priority for relocation to safety.
But thousands more Afghans also risked their lives to work with the British over those two decades.
Many did it out of patriotism, believing they were working to secure a better Afghanistan.
Some did it for the money, some did it because they trusted Britain to safeguard their lives and their personal details.
A data breach like this now threatens to undermine any future promises by a British official who says: "Trust us, your data is safe with us."
Was there a cover-up?
When this "unauthorised data breach" was finally discovered, a full 18 months after it occurred, the UK government obtained what is known as a super-injunction, preventing its publication by the media.
A super-injunction is so draconian that it means you cannot even report the fact that you cannot report it.
That measure has only just been lifted now, following an independent review.
There is a logical case to be made that this measure was necessary to protect the lives of those affected by the data breach.
However, questions are now being raised about whether the injunction - applied for by the previous, Conservative government - might also have been for political purposes.
The High Court judge who lifted the super-injunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain, said that it had "had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy".
The chancellor has told the financial industry it must change the "negative" narrative around savers investing money in stocks and shares in order to help grow the economy.
In a speech, Rachel Reeves said: "For too long, we have presented investment in too negative a light, quick to warn people of the risks without giving proper weight to the benefits."
The government is working with the financial regulator to provide support for would-be investors.
At the annual Mansion House dinner in the City of London, Reeves told business leaders: "Our tangled system of financial advice and guidance has meant that people cannot get the right support to make decisions for themselves."
She said the government is consulting with the Financial Conduct Authority "to introduce a brand-new type of targeted support for consumers ahead of the new financial year".
Meanwhile, U-turns on welfare benefits and the winter fuel allowance have stoked speculation there could be tax rises in the Budget later this year.
Reeves said the new measures would help "boost retail investment so that more savers can reap the benefits of UK economic success".
But the value of investments in assets such as shares can go down as well as up, and savers have tended to be cautious over the risks involved, although the spending power of savings can be eroded by rising prices.
The government has in the past encouraged the public to buy shares in UK companies, including in 2013 when Royal Mail was floated on the London Stock Exchange.
But perhaps the most famous example was in 1986, when the state-owned British Gas was privatised and Margaret Thatcher's government launched the "tell Sid" campaign. TV adverts featured characters urged each other to "tell Sid" about the chance to buy shares in British Gas.
In reference to her recent travails - including a tearful appearance in the House of Commons - Reeves said that during a visit to a school, a girl had asked her what job she would do if she could have any job in the world.
"Given the events of the last few weeks, I suspect many of you would sympathise if I had said "anything but chancellor"," she joked with the audience. "But I didn't."
In her speech, Reeves said she would "continue to consider further changes to ISAs, engaging widely over the coming months".
She also provided more details about changes to the UK's financial services sector including reforming regulation.
"In too many areas, regulation still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses," she said. "Choking off the enterprise and innovation that is the lifeblood of growth."
She said regulators in other sectors "must take up the call I make this evening not to bend to the temptation of excessive caution but to boldly regulate for growth in the service of prosperity across our country".
Within an hour of the Supreme Court ruling on Monday, workers fired from the Education Department received an email informing them that their official last day would be Aug. 1.
Mr. Cuomo, the former governor of New York, has vowed to run a more energetic campaign than he did in the mayoral primary, and aimed to demonstrate that on Tuesday.
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo used a campaign tour on Tuesday to kick off his mission to improve upon what he acknowledged was a lackluster primary campaign for mayor.
Members of the Syrian government’s security forces in a truck in the southern Syrian province of Sweida on Tuesday. More than 100 people have been killed in the region since violence erupted on Sunday, according to a war monitoring group.
Login
lead image
