I think what bothers me the most about this is how it was put together. It's clearly some kind of agreement between the 'five eyes' (I had no idea they actually

I think what bothers me the most about this is how it was put together. It's clearly some kind of agreement between the 'five eyes' (I had no idea they actually called themselves that publicly) to spy on their citizenry. But why am I, an American citizen, reading this on an Australian site? And why are intelligence agencies creating policy? Perhaps the fact that I work in more of government environment than a private one explains my sensitivity to this. But seriously, this is the kind of statement that heads of state or foreign ministers should make publicly. "We, the Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Immigration Ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States" None of these agencies have been given the right by their respective nations to formulate treaties and agreements, and that's what really bothers me. People might joke about the deep-state, but this is what we mean. Intelligence agencies are formulating policy that will have great effect on the citizenry of their respective countries, and there is no discussion of it in these country's parliamentary or congressional chambers. Intelligence agencies should not get together and form pacts. The fact that they can achieve this shows the general erosion of democratic values in all five countries. In the 1990's when Americans concerned with government spying were talking about Echelon and the NSA, the Five Eyes were considered a bit of a secret thing. Everyone knew about it, but I don't remember any of the five countries ever confirmed it. Now they're just out in the open brazenly proclaiming principles and policies, as if these intelligence agencies represent us. "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." Which I translate as, "Give us what we want or we'll take it. We are judge, jury and executioner." Seriously, what does "legislative or other measures" mean? Are they just brazenly admitting that they're not bound by law, in contradiction with the immediately proceeding paragraph? Intelligence agencies don't get to pursue legislative measures in a democracy. We tell them how they should be bound, they don't get to design their own shackles. This whole statement is just incredibly brazen and undemocratic.