China and the Five Eyes Alliance

While many people are unaware of its existence, an intelligence alliance formed in 1946, was created between five anglophone nations and their security agencies.  The partnership includes:

 

1.) the United States and the National Security Administration (NSA)

 

2.) the United Kingdom and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)

 

3.) Canada and Communications Security Establishment (CSEC)

 

4.) Australia and Australian Signals Directorate (ASD)

 

5.) New Zealand and Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)

  

Through a lengthy series of intricate and secret bilateral agreements, the Five Eyes partners conduct the interception, collection, acquisition, analysis and decryption activities, sharing the intelligence data obtained with their partner nations by default.  The secretive arrangements allow for unlawful intrusions on the right to privacy of the citizens of these five nations.  Here is a quote about Five Eyes' data sharing from Privacy International:

 

"It has been believed for some time that much of the intelligence produced by the Five Eyes can be accessed by any of the partner states at any time. As early as the 1980’s, ECHELON, a “global Internet-like communication network,” allowed Five Eyes analysts to “task computers at each collection site, and receive the results” on civil satellite communications.

 

It is likely that the Five Eyes agencies have adopted common approaches to collection and similar interfaces as means of making intelligence co-operation and sharing more expedient. Yet agencies in different member states operate under disparate systems of laws and practice, making some effort to harmonize such standards beneficial given the functional integration and co-operation across the Five Eyes."

 

Thanks to revelations by Edward Snowden, we now know that Five Eyes have integrated programs, staff, bases and analysis and that the information that they glean is shared with all partners.

 

In March 2020, Five Eyes member states agreed to expand its role away from security and intelligence to a stance that weighed in on human rights and democracy, focussing on online child sexual exploitation and abuse as shown on this statement from March 2022:

According to a press release from the United States Department of Defense regarding a Five Eyes meeting held in October 2020, we find that the Five Eyes is focussing on security challenges, most particularly those in the Indo-Pacific region (i.e. China, particularly given its strained relationship with Five Eyes' member Australia):

 

Now, let's see how China fits into the Five Eyes agenda.  China has been following Five Eyes and its newly expanded role as shown in this quote from the Global Times dated December 22, 2020 with bolds throughout this posting being mine:

  

"Amid strained China-Australia relations, Five Eyes nations are reportedly in preliminary discussions on how to respond to China's actions with one source describing cooperation within the alliance as "off the charts at the moment", NewsCorp reported. That means they may coordinate to impose restrictions on China. As a matter of fact, due to the hegemonic status and great influence of the US in world affairs, the Five Eyes alliance has become a tool for the US to maintain its dominant position. The US has long viewed China as a major strategic threat, and it is not surprising that it would lead the Five Eyes alliance to take collective actions against China for a variety of reasons. 

 

Take ideological differences, for example. The US and other Five Eyes countries are typical Western countries with democratic political systems, and they harbor widespread bias against Chinese socialist ideological values. The Five Eyes countries subconsciously view China with a Cold War and zero-sum game mentality. On the basis of ideology, these countries highlight their identity as democratic and free countries by cooperating to counter "Communist China.

 

The idea to build the Five Eyes alliance into a new anti-China axis is a wishful thinking. It will only encounter harsh realities. "

 

Recent opinion pieces and news items in Global Times continue to convey China's views on Five Eyes as shown here:

 

...and quoted here:

 

"The alliance has been behind issues including the origins-tracing of COVID-19, issues related to China's Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and the South China Sea. The Five Eyes has moved from a secret espionage and intelligence organization in the past to a coalition that becomes more and more China-phobic, and resorts to more and more abominable methods....

 

In recent years, in order to meet Washington's strategic needs to suppress China, the Five Eyes alliance has once again used the so-called China threat to prolong its existence, and has gradually transformed from an intelligence-sharing mechanism to an "information command" dedicated to anti-China policy coordination....

 

An organization that should have hidden only in the dark and used disgraceful means to "contain its opponents" suddenly began to act ostentatiously by simply relying on anti-China propaganda. For example, intelligence agencies in Australia and other countries frequently approach and harass the Chinese communities in those countries, coercing them to become informants for the Five Eyes. The consulates of the Five Eyes member countries stationed in Hong Kong have almost become the "commander-in-chief of interference and subversion." The alliance, in the name of "protecting national security," also smears and attacks high-tech companies in other countries, especially China, without any evidence.... (think Huawei)

 

As a matter of fact, the Five Eyes has become a "gangster group" with obvious racism. Its hostility and anxiety toward China come from its deep-rooted values of white supremacy and racial discrimination, and it is unwilling to see Chinese people's lives getting increasingly better.

 

Nominally, the five countries share intelligence, but the truth is that the four eyes rely on and take orders from the "one eye" - the US. Even Western media have to admit that most of the intelligence shared within the Five Eyes alliance comes from Washington....

 

Being good at creating "imaginary enemies" has always been an inherent feature of the US' strategy, but the US' decision-making and intelligence departments have become increasingly paranoid in implementing the strategy of "creating enemies." The way the US government has been conducting diplomacy in recent years is more and more like the way an intelligent agency or the CIA does. US intelligence departments provide decision-making departments with analysis that distorts the truth and meets specific political needs, and decision-making departments follow these highly hostile playbooks to handle related diplomatic issues."

 

....and here:

 

...and quoted here

 

"When asked about the Global Times' exclusive report on the Five Eyes Alliance which is fabricating evidence that intends to show China is "infiltrating politically into Western countries," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a press conference on Tuesday that China demands an explanation from relevant countries. 

 

In terms of political infiltration, Western countries such as the US have considerable expertise in practicing it, Wang noted. 

 

In the name of "freedom and democracy," the US instigated "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and other places to create regional turbulence to achieve its own geopolitical goals, Wang said...

 

Politicians in the US, the UK, and other countries are in collusion with secessionists in China's Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Acting as a pawn and white glove of the US government, the National Endowment for Democracy has repeatedly interfered in Hong Kong's affairs, attempting to turn the city into a bridgehead for subversion and infiltration, Wang added. 

 

The fact that the US and the UK are interfering and infiltrating into China, while distorting facts and blaming China instead, reveals their deep-rooted Cold War mentality and ideological bias, Wang said. 

 

In the name of "anti-infiltration," relevant countries have carried out political persecution against persons engaged in normal exchanges and cooperation with China, to create a chilling effect and to bring McCarthyism back to life, which has not only seriously damaged the bilateral relations between these countries and China, but also encouraged racial discrimination and hateful words and deeds in these countries, Wang noted." 

 

As you can see from China's views on Five Eyes, China looks at the world through its own cultural filter which is far different from Western culture.  In large part, China's current role as a global superpower was created by the Clinton Administration which insisted that the future health of global trade relied on China's accession to the World Trade Organization in December 2001.   This move eventually resulted in a China that has the world by the "short and curlies" with the deindustrialized West being very heavily reliant on Chinese goods just as Europe is very heavily reliant on Russia's hydrocarbon reserves and the remainder of the West is reliant on Russia's massive inventory of non-hydrocarbon natural resources.  Both China and Russia play the long game; they can be patient and wait as the West slowly but surely loses its place of global prominence.  Such is not the case for the West and their waning influence on global geopolitics.

 

End-to-End Encryption - Five Eyes and the Illusion of Privacy

The five nations that make up the Five Eyes (FVEY) group, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have just concluded a security summit, held in London, and agreed on joint action that could ultimately impact our privacy.  This is not terribly surprising given the group's previous attempts at prying into our personal lives under the guise of protecting us from various forms of threatening behaviour.

The meeting was attended by the Home Affairs, Interior, Security and Immigration Ministers of the five nations.  In the words of the United Kingdom's Home Secretary Priti Patel, the purpose of this two-day meeting was to "respond to a challenging and rapidly changing global environment, strengthening our influence on the world stage to promote our prosperity and security".  The focus was on "Emerging Threats" and how to address the opportunities and risks that new technologies pose, particularly related to cybersecurity, online harms and encryption.  It is the group's focus on encryption that I will address in this posting.  As you will soon see, the meeting had little to do with promoting our security and more to do with reducing the illusion of our privacy.

Let's start by looking at the Ministerial Communique that emerged from the meeting:

While the communique does outline basic actions that FVEY will take to counter foreign interference in elections in their respective jurisdictions at the very end of the communique (basically an afterthought), it leans heavily toward actions that the group believes are necessary to combat "the epidemic" of online child sexual exploitation and abuse.  While there is no doubt that online child sexual exploitation is a problem, the methods suggested by those in attendance at the meeting are far-reaching and could have a permanent  and intended consequence for the online community as a whole.  To find out what FVEYs has in store for use, we have to refer to the press release dated July 30, 2019 from the office of the aforementioned Priti Patel.  Here are some key quotes with all bolds being mine:

"During a roundtable with tech firms, ministers stressed that law enforcement agencies’ efforts to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes would be hampered if the industry carries out plans to implement end-to-end encryption, without the necessary safeguards.

They added that encrypted services could mask the full scale of harms on the internet and put vulnerable users at risk.

The Five Eyes are united that tech firms should not develop their systems and services, including end-to-end encryption, in ways that empower criminals or put vulnerable people at risk.

We heard today about the devastating and lifelong impact of child sexual exploitation and abuse and agreed firm commitments to collaborate to get ahead of the threat.

As Governments, protecting our citizens is our top priority, which is why through the unique and binding partnership of Five Eyes we will tackle these emerging threats together.

Also speaking at the conclusion of the two-day conference United States Attorney General William P. Barr said:

The Five Eyes partnership is vital. Throughout this week, we have had substantive, frank and positive discussions surrounding our shared duty to protect public safety, including those related to the internet.

Encryption presents a unique challenge. We must ensure that we do not stand by as advances in technology create spaces where criminal activity of the most heinous kind can go undetected and unpunished.

Indeed, making our virtual world more secure should not come at the expense of making us more vulnerable in the real world. We are grateful for the leadership of Home Secretary Patel in facilitating these critical discussions and shared commitment to safety for all."

You will notice the quote from U.S. Attorney General William Barr, an attendee at a related meeting held in London.  Here is an additional quote about the contentious issue of encryption from Willam Barr at the International Conference on Cybersecurity held in New York City on July 23, 2019, again, with all bolds being mine:

"Among the most critical advances in cybersecurity has been the development of advanced encryption techniques and their deployment in a range of important applications.  Encryption provides enormous benefits to society by enabling secure communications, data storage and on-line transactions. Because of advances in encryption, we can now better protect our personal information; more securely engage in e-commerce and internet communications; obtain secure software updates; and limit access to sensitive computers, devices, and networks.

As the Federal Government, we welcome these improvements to privacy and security, and will work to preserve and strengthen them. But at the same time, we must recognize that our citizens face an array of threats to their safety far broader than just cyber threats. Hackers are a danger, but so are violent criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, fraudsters, and sexual predators. While we should not hesitate to deploy encryption to protect ourselves from cybercriminals, this should not be done in a way that eviscerates society’s ability to defend itself against other types of criminal threats.  In other words, making our virtual world more secure should not come at the expense of making us more vulnerable in the real world. But, unfortunately, this is what we are seeing today. 

Service providers, device manufacturers and application developers are developing and deploying encryption that can only be decrypted by the end user or customer, and they are refusing to provide technology that allows for lawful access by law enforcement agencies in appropriate circumstances.  As a result, law enforcement agencies are increasingly prevented from accessing communications in transit or data stored on cell phones or computers, even with a warrant based on probable cause to believe that criminal activity is underway. Because, in the digital age, the bulk of evidence is becoming digital, this form of “warrant proof” encryption poses a grave threat to public safety by extinguishing the ability of law enforcement to obtain evidence essential to detecting and investigating crimes. It allows criminals to operate with impunity, hiding their activities under an impenetrable cloak of secrecy. As you know, some refer to this eclipsing of the Government’s investigative capabilities as “going dark.” While encryption protects against cyberattacks, deploying it in warrant-proof form jeopardizes public safety more generally.  The net effect is to reduce the overall security of society.  I am here today to tell you that, as we use encryption to improve cybersecurity, we must ensure that we retain society’s ability to gain lawful access to data and communications when needed to respond to criminal activity."

Here's what he has to say about the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and how it relates to the issue of end-to-end encryption and the state's right to know all of your business:

"This proposition should not be controversial. It simply reflects the balance struck in the Constitution itself and maintained since the Founding era.  The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment strikes a balance between the individual citizen's interest in conducting certain affairs in private and the general public's interest in subjecting possible criminal activity to investigation. It does so, on the one hand, by securing for each individual a private enclave around his “person, house, papers, and effects” — a "zone" bounded by the individual's own reasonable expectations of privacy. So long as the individual acts within this "zone of privacy,” his activities are shielded from unreasonable Government investigation. On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment establishes that, under certain circumstances, the public has a legitimate need to gain access to an individual’s zone of privacy in pursuit of public safety, and it defines the terms under which the Government may obtain that access.  When the Government has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is within an individual’s zone of privacy, the Government is entitled to search for or seize the evidence, and the search usually must be preceded by a judicial determination that "probable cause" exists and be authorized by a warrant.

The key point is that the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right of access are two sides of the same coin.  The reason we are able, as part of our basic social compact, to guarantee individuals a certain zone of privacy is precisely because the public has reserved the right to access that zone when public safety requires.  If the public’s right of access is blocked, then these zones of personal privacy are converted into “law-free zones” insulated from legitimate scrutiny.

Since the Founding, advances in technology have disrupted this balance in different ways.  Sometimes, technology creates new spheres of privacy that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment could not have thought to enumerate, such as with the advent of the telephone.  Sometimes, technology gives law enforcement new means to invade privacy that were previously unimaginable, such as thermal imaging devices.  And sometimes, technology makes it easier for suspects to evade law enforcement even when there is a lawful basis to investigate, such as automobiles — or to bring us back today’s topic, data encryption."

Given that FVEY's mandate allows the member nations to share data with each other, you can pretty much assure yourself that the recent moves that could force the technology world to provide a "backdoor" into encrypted communications for governments will lead to less privacy for all of us.  While Mr. Barr claims that this is not a breach of a basic right written into the United States Constitution, his viewpoint is obviously slanted in favour of the Department of Justice and his own best interests.  Bit by bit, in the name of fighting terrorism and now in the name of fighting against those who exploit children, our rights as citizens are disappearing. 

Five Eyes, Encryption and Your Privacy

A recent intergovernmental meeting in Australia received almost no coverage by the mainstream media, a factor that plays into the hands of the governments involved.  During this meeting, the five governments involved issued a statement that should send chills down the collective spines of those of us who really care about our privacy and who are increasingly concerned about how the state is advancing its efforts to know everything about us.

For those of you who are not aware, during the last week of August 2018, a meeting was held between the Five Eyes pact nations; the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  Five Eyes or FVEY was established in March 1946 by the United Kingdom and the United States as the UKUSA agreement with the mandate to share all signals intelligence (SIGINT).  In the aftermath of the Second World War when Britain had successfully cracked Germany's Enigma cipher and the United States had cracked Japan's Purple cipher, it became increasingly apparent that the developing Cold War would require further intelligence cooperation.  Canada joined the alliance in 1948 and New Zealand and Australia joined in 1956, creating a global intelligence sharing organization.   Here is a quote from an article on Five Eyes from the Journal of Political Sciences and Public Affairs about the duties of the Five Eyes member nations:

"The Five Eyes alliance allows its member nations to share the collection and analysis burden of global threats. Precise assignments are not publicly known, but research indicates that Australia monitors South and East Asia emissions. New Zealand covers the South Pacific and Southeast Asia. The UK devotes attention to Europe and Western Russia, while the US monitors the Caribbean, China, Russia, the Middle East and Africa.  This collaboration has allowed its members to concentrate on distinct areas that they would not have the resources to do otherwise. Governments across the Western world have responded and adapted, further integrating formerly separate intelligence capacities. As the technological barriers between information systems and previously stove-piped databases continue to fall, the sharing of data has become not merely possible, but routine.”

Here are the government organizations from each member state that are responsible for intercepting intelligence information of various types:

1.) United States: The National Security Agency (NSA) at Ft. Meade, Maryland, is the United States’ predominant SIGINT agency and therefore interacts with Five Eyes’ member agencies the most. In addition to the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) both contribute to, and draw resources from, Five Eyes member agencies. The CIA is the predominant collector of human intelligence (HUMINT), and the FBI is in charge of counter-terrorism investigations.

2.) Canada: Canada’s intelligence community is much smaller than that of the United States. However, Canada’s professionalism and unique geography continue to make it an ally as valuable now as during the Cold War. The Communications Security Establishment (CSE) is Canada’s SIGINT agency; the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is the HUMINT agency.

3.) Australia: Australia does not have an intelligence culture at the same level as the US. Due to its relative geographic isolation, it maintains a stronger intelligence community than Canada. Australia has been a large contributor toward the continued collaboration of intelligence among Five Eyes. Besides Five Eyes; Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are bound by the ANZUS collective security agreement established in 1951, further integrating defense intelligence.  Access to partners’ intelligence is a huge multiplier to the capabilities and effectiveness of our intelligence agencies.  Australia’s primary SIGINT agency is the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) is the foremost HUMINT agency, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) is the country’s main security, counterintelligence and counter-terrorism agency.

4.) New Zealand: The core New Zealand Intelligence Community (NZIC) comprises GCSB, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), and parts of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC).  The GCSB, Government Communications Security Bureau, has two main functions: information assurance and obtaining foreign signals intelligence. The NZSIS is New Zealand’s HUMINT collection agency. The parts of the DPMC that work alongside the rest of the NZIC are the National Assessments Bureau (NAB) which collates and analyzes information on foreign countries, and the Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Co-ordination (ODESC) which coordinates all agencies in security situations.

5.) United Kingdom: The United Kingdom’s primary SIGINT agency is the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ); the main HUMINT agency for threats outside the country is the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS or MI6), and its domestic security intelligence service is the Security Service (MI5). 

With that background on Five Eyes, let's look at the most recent developments from the meeting held in Australia on August 28 and 29, 2016.  In the official communique issued by the Five Country Ministerial (FCM) at the end of the meeting, we find the following:

"We, the Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Immigration Ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States met on the Gold Coast, Australia, on August 28-29 2018, to discuss how we can better collaborate to meet our common security challenges. We reaffirmed that the close and enduring five country partnership, developed following the Second World War, remains fundamental to the security and prosperity of our nations...

The internet and digital technologies are increasingly central to contemporary life and to the social and economic development of our societies. Global connectivity enables faster communication, better access to services, and new ways to conduct business and share news and information. We affirmed our vision for a free, open, safe, and secure internet, which is fundamental to our economic growth and prosperity.

Just as the internet provides many benefits, it also provides opportunities for people to carry out crimes and spread illicit content.  Terrorism, child sexual abuse and exploitation, violent extremism, and coercive acts of interference and disinformation are enduring concerns of government. The anonymous, instantaneous, and networked nature of the online environment has magnified these threats and opened up new vectors for harm.  Governments have a responsibility to protect those within our borders against both physical and digital threats, and to ensure that the rule of law prevails online, as it does offline. We have a responsibility to tackle these challenges in a coordinated and effective way.

While senior digital industry representatives did not accept our invitation to participate in discussions on pressing issues regarding the illicit use of online spaces, we reiterated the need for digital industry to take more responsibility for content promulgated and communicated through their platforms and applications.  We agreed to a Joint Statement on Countering the Illicit Use of Online Spaces, outlining our communities' high expectations of digital industry companies, with a focus on countering online child sexual abuse and exploitation, and violent extremist and terrorist material. We called for the further development and expansion of capabilities to prevent upload of illicit content, and to execute urgent and immediate takedowns. We reiterated the importance of industry investment in human and automated detection capabilities, underscoring the need for major companies to set industry standards and to help smaller companies deploy these capabilities to their platforms, including through the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT). And we called for increased efforts to counter foreign interference and disinformation conducted via online platforms." (my bolds)

So, what do the Five Eyes propose to reduce the risk of online terrorism, child sexual abuse and exploitation, violent extremism and coercive acts of interference and disinformation (all the rage since the 2016 American election)?  Here's their answer:

Here are some key quotes:

"Privacy laws must prevent arbitrary or unlawful interference, but privacy is not absolute.  It is an established principle that appropriate government authorities should be able to seek access to otherwise private information when a court or independent authority has authorized such access based on established legal standards.  

Governments should recognize that the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible, although such situations should be rare...

The principle that access by authorities to the information of private citizens occurs only pursuant to the rule of law and due process is fundamental to maintaining the values of our democratic society in all circumstances – whether in their homes, personal effects, devices, or communications. Access to information, subject to this principle, is critical to the ability of governments to protect our citizens by investigating threats and prosecuting crimes. This lawful access should always be subject to oversight by independent authorities and/or subject to judicial review."

Note the use of "...privacy is not absolute..." and how the five governments use the threats of terrorism, organized crime and child sex offenders as the "stick" to put fear into the hearts of a non-thinking public.

This is a groundbreaking technological change.  Basically, Five Eyes are calling on technology companies to build back doors into their products so that law enforcement (aka "The State") will always be able to access encrypted data.  While the Five Eyes statement appears rather benign on the surface by politely asking tech companies to voluntarily submit to this "suggestion", however, this sentence appears at the end of the Statement of Principles:

"Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries, we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions."

While many among us feel that we aren't doing anything wrong  we have nothing to hide.  With that sentiment in mind, I would ask that you watch this video interview of Edward Snowden and see how you feel about "The State" demanding that your encrypted communications be accessible to the intelligence structure of the Five Eyes member states at their whim: