A British Army service member reported being targeted by an unknown person who claimed to have obtained nude photos from the service member’s phone and identified the victim on social media. The service member initially agreed to pay £100 (about $133) but refused a later demand for £250 (about 33,000 yen), eventually reporting the incident to a platoon leader. The case resulted in a court-martial, a guilty plea and disciplinary action related to Army security measures.
Threats involving photos and a mobile phone
On January 19, Barton-Kennedy reported to the platoon commander receiving a message “from an unknown person who had obtained nude photos of him from the photo section of his cell phone and who had identified him on social media.”
Burton-Kennedy initially agreed to pay the attackers 100 British pounds, or about $133. The service member refused when the demand increased to 250 British pounds, described in the source as about 33,000 yen, and only later informed the platoon leader about what had happened.
Without the mobile phone, Burton-Kennedy said, the service member could not contact a daughter on her birthday or a pregnant partner.
Court-martial and appeal
Burton-Kennedy was eventually court-martialed and pleaded guilty at a July 30 hearing.
During the proceedings, Barton-Kennedy said the order given at the time was understood, but asked the court to “consider the personal circumstances” involved, according to court filings.
In a written statement, Mr Burton-Kennedy said the first threatening message was shocking.
“While I remain in a state of shock and anxiety, I recognize that I have an obligation to report a compromise proposal without further delay,” he wrote.
He added that he “deeply regrets” the incident and that serving in the British Army was “one of the greatest privileges of my life.”
Burton-Kennedy appealed the verdict, but the appeal was dismissed in August 2026.
British Army response
In response to a request for comment, British Army spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel EP McKee told Ars that the security measures imposed in the case were intended to protect military personnel.
“Violations of Army security measures that could compromise personal security or operational security can be swiftly addressed, and violating personnel can be expected to receive uncompromising disciplinary action,” McKee wrote.
Source: arstechnica.com