World

Defense bans use of Polarsteps after leak in travel app

The defense ministry has prohibited the Polarsteps app on official phones after it was revealed that military personnel could be tracked via the app.

5 September 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Defense bans use of Polarsteps after leak in travel app — Archive photoPhoto: OSeveno · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0

The travel app Polarsteps is no longer permitted on the official phones of the Defense Ministry. This was confirmed by a spokesperson for the ministry following an investigation by the platform Follow the Money (FTM).

FTM discovered that there was a security breach in the app, which allowed information from millions of travelers to be collected. This also included data from military personnel from the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Belgium.

Due to this breach, dozens of military personnel could be identified and tracked via Polarsteps. After using the app, not all users turned off their GPS location, which contributed to the accessibility of their data.

FTM brought this news to light, which led to the Defense Ministry's decision to ban the use of Polarsteps on official phones. This decision follows the platform's findings, which highlight the risks associated with the app.

The ban specifically applies to official phones of the ministry, while it remains unclear whether this measure will also affect the app's use by other users in the Netherlands.

The incident has raised questions about the security of apps and how users can be protected against such breaches in the future.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.