Two Harvard students have created a privacy nightmare, according to 404 Media. Real-time facial recognition smart glasses, which pull up names, contacts, addresses, and more about a complete stranger just by looking at them.

On top of the facial recognition software capabilities, the students’ project is even more eye-opening considering the hardware they’re using to run it: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses.

The students – AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio – say they won’t be releasing the product nor the software behind it. The project, titled I-XRAY, is meant to raise awareness about what is possible with today’s technology. In fact, it’s something that Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook have long had the power to do, but they haven’t released such capabilities due to the high potential for misuse.

How it works

Nguyen and Ardayfio were able to create I-XRAY, thanks, in part, to Meta’s smart glasses and PimEyes’ facial recognition software.

While there are a few facial recognition search engines out there, PimEyes is perhaps the largest one that makes its technology accessible by the public. Users can simply upload a photo to PimEyes, and using facial recognition, the service scans the web for images of the individual in the photo.

Using the information from PimEyes, I-XRAY can then identify the individual and find out personal information on them by scanning the internet for articles and through data brokers like FastPeopleSearch. This information can include full names, phone numbers, home addresses, social media profiles, and more.

The entire system is automated to start pulling this data as soon as the smart glasses detect an individual’s face in the frame. The students uploaded a video to social media to show the process.

Meta pointed out in their response to the I-XRAY project that any similar camera product can be adapted to utilize PimEyes in this way. There’s nothing particularly unique about Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses’ technology itself that allowed this project to happen.

However, Nyugen said there was a specific reason that the two students chose Meta’s smart glasses: The creepiness factor of being able to dox complete strangers with hardware that looks just like a normal, everyday glasses. Unlike many wearables, the Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses don’t look like a tech device. Furthermore, their $300 price point puts them in a fairly affordable range compared to other similar products.

How to protect yourself

As previously mentioned, there isn’t a public product or service out there that can do this – yet. But, if you are concerned about the potential to dox individuals on the fly like this, the two Harvard students explained how to protect yourself.

According to Nguyen and Ardayfio, it’s as simple as reaching out to these data brokers to get your information removed.

For example, PimEyes provides an opt-out page where people can get their images removed from their facial recognition search engine. Data brokers like FastPeopleSearch also usually provide forms where users can request data removal from the service.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Blackstone president Jonathan Gray said an accelerating recovery in most of the commercial property market would not be enough to save some over-indebted owners from having to take losses, mainly on offices.

Gray said he believed the commercial property market had reached the bottom after a two-year downturn caused by higher interest rates, and that values for most property types were now rising. Blackstone holds real estate assets worth $603bn worldwide.

But some investors who have so far held off from recognising falls in the value of office buildings are likely to have to take writedowns, which in some cases will have a knock-on effect on lenders too.

“Most of the losses will happen in the equity market, but there will be banks,” he said. “Could a regional bank show up next month and say: ‘I have to take a $500mn or $1bn writedown’? Yeah. There are still some losses that will work their way through the system.”

Building owners can often avoid acknowledging the value that their properties have lost until forced to sell by a debt deadline, meaning declining prices drip-feed into the market for years.

“It takes time,” said Gray. “A lot of these buildings might be leased. The debt might get extended.”

Offices, which make up 20 per cent of commercial real estate, have suffered especially steep price declines as the effects of higher debt costs have combined with the rise of hybrid working.

The Blackstone president, a real estate veteran who oversees the private capital group’s day-to-day operations, said more workers would return to offices. But he added: “It doesn’t feel like we’re going back to five days a week. So there is less demand.” 

Although debt levels in commercial real estate were lower in recent years than during the global financial crisis, Gray said some investors neglected interest rate risks during the period of ultra-low rates after the pandemic. 

“When rates fall below some sort of long-term natural rate — which they did after Covid — pricing that in as a more permanent state of affairs can be riskier,” he said. “There are still deals that have too much leverage, particularly office deals.” 

However, he cautioned against taking negative headlines about particular over-indebted buildings as a sign of ill-health for the commercial real estate market.  

“You’re going to read . . . about those [buildings] and people will say values are now declining,” Gray said. “But that’s actually in the past. It’s a little bit of separating the storm from the wreckage, which takes some time to work its way through the system.” 

The broad index of commercial property values from analysts Green Street rose 3.3 per cent in the year to August. But the index remains 19 per cent below its 2022 peak. 

Gray in January said the real estate market was “bottoming”. Blackstone has started buying more real estate this year as it tries to invest in cheap properties before prices rise significantly. It has large holdings in warehouses, housing and hotels and a smaller allocation to offices. 

One challenge for investment managers has been the sluggish market for property transactions, which has made it difficult to sell properties and generate cash. Gray said there were already more buyers in the market and that the pace of larger deals would pick up over the next few months.

He predicted the acceleration would be boosted by real estate investment trusts (Reits) — publicly traded landlords.

“I think there will be some Reit IPOs,” Gray said. “But I also think you’ll see existing public companies who will issue equity to sellers and/or do secondary offerings. I would expect the Reits will end up being fairly acquisitive.”

WIZZAIR passengers have been told their flights are CANCELLED amid a confusing “technical issue”.

Airline customers were baffled after their travel plans were suddenly scrapped at the last moment.

2

A confusing statement has been issued by the Hungarian ultra-low cost carrier with holidaymakers still in the dark about their trips.

One customer even alleged they’ve spent “hours sitting on the terminal floor” with no information and branded the company “disgraceful”.

A spokesperson wrote on X: “Dear customers,

“We are experiencing a technical issue affecting our booking system. As a result, you may notice changes to your booking on the app or website or receive related notifications.

“Please disregard these changes, and rest assured that we will update you as soon as the issue is resolved.

“Out team work diligently to fix the problem and restore the affected flights.

“Thank you for your understanding and patience, Wizz Air.”

Passenger vented their frustration underneath the social media post.

“No email confirmation received yet for a flight booked yesterday. Customer services said it was been sent,” wrote one.

Another penned: “I have a flight this weekend and I have a notification my flight is cancelled, this is less than 72 hours before the flight and it’s a total sham! Please can you provide an update on the process and a CLEAR statement to say that the flights are not cancelled and this isn’t clear.”

A third claimed: “Still no info on why flights from Naples were cancelled? Hours sitting on the floor of terminal with no information and not even a bottle of water. Disgraceful.”

“Are flights cancelled or not? I have rebooked my flight because my flight is this weekend. This is unacceptable,” wrote a fourth.

Fuming passengers have so far complained that flights to and from Istanbul, Jordan, and Albania have been scrapped.

A Wizz Air spokesperson told The Sun: “We are currently experiencing a technical issue affecting our flights. As a result, customers may notice changes to their bookings on the app, website, or receive related notifications.

“We kindly ask the customers to disregard these changes, and rest assured that we will update them as soon as the issue is resolved.

“Our team is working diligently to fix the problem and restore the affected flights.

“Thank you for your understanding and patience.”

2

191

Steve Macek

On September 4, the Department of Justice seized 32 internet domains alleged to be part of a Russian government “covert operation to interfere in and influence the outcome of” US elections. That same day, the DOJ unveiled an indictment of two employees of RT, a Russian state-controlled media outlet, for money laundering and spending $10 million to co-opt online US commentators in an effort to distribute “pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation” to American audiences.

Stories about Russian attempts to influence American elections are, of course, nothing new. After all, during the four years of Trump’s presidency, the big commercial news media devoted hours of programming and countless column-inches of coverage to  “Russiagate,” the now-largely-debunked theory that Donald Trump or his campaign actively colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 presidential election. While there is no question that Russian intelligence operatives attempted to spread misinformation and purchased digital ads designed to impact the 2016 election, claims by news outlets, such as the New York Times, that these operatives were responsible for “the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history” are almost certainly overblown and exaggerated.

The fact is that the minions of Vladimir Putin are not the only foreign nationals scheming to influence our politics. Ongoing under-the-radar efforts by foreign-influenced companies and lobbyists for other countries designed to shape US elections and policy-making may not get the headlines that Russian propaganda operations do, but may ultimately be more effective and potentially even more damaging to our democracy.

Ignoring Dark Money Meddling by Foreign-Influenced Companies

Federal law prohibits contributions or expenditures made directly or indirectly by foreign nationals intended to influence US elections.

The first things that come to most people’s minds when they think about foreign meddling in US politics are cases in which American politicians or campaign operatives knowingly accept illegal contributions from foreign donors. Such cases do occur. For instance, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was recently indicted for knowingly accepting campaign donations from Turkish businessmen over a number of years. Last year, Republican campaign strategist Jessie Benton was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for soliciting an illegal contribution from a Russian businessman to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

But far more common and far more troubling are cases in which foreign-influenced companies make use of what are, in the United States, perfectly legal campaign finance mechanisms to obscure independent expenditures aimed at influencing the outcome of elections in ways that are not coordinated with a particular candidate or party.

In a pair of 2010 cases, Citizens United v. FEC and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that legal restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and nonprofits violate the First Amendment and that organizations may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on elections as long as they do not coordinate their spending with candidates, parties, and campaigns. Much of the independent money spent on elections is funneled into two sorts of organizations—super PACs, independent political action committees that can spend unlimited amounts on political messaging and campaign ads but must disclose their donors, and tax-exempt 501(c)4 “social welfare” organizations, which cannot spend the majority of their budgets on political activity but do not have to disclose their donors. Moreover, 501(c)4 organizations can, in turn, donate funds to super PACS, thereby rendering anonymous or “dark” expenditures by corporations and other deep-pocket donors intended to sway voters. Since 2010, the watchdog organization Open Secrets has tracked more than $2.8 billion in “dark money”—political expenditures from undisclosed sources—that has flooded into our elections.

The same legal loopholes that allow all wealthy corporations and individuals to spend millions in “dark money” to shape the political process also permit US corporations that are subsidiaries of foreign companies, or that have significant foreign ownership, to pour untraceable money into US elections. According to one estimate, 40 percent of US corporate equity is owned by foreign investors. A recent Open Secrets study of political expenditures by foreign-influenced corporations—corporations with more than 5 percent aggregate foreign ownership or individual foreign ownership of more than one percent—in state elections in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Washington found that such companies were responsible for $163 million in contributions from 2018 to 2022. Meanwhile, foreign-connected company PACs spent nearly $20 million on federal elections in 2022 alone.

And just like domestic dark money funders, foreign-connected corporations often funnel their political spending through various “shell” and “front” organizations that make their spending exceedingly difficult to trace. For example, oil and gas giants BP and Shell are both wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign corporations. They are also both members of the US Chamber of Commerce, which is a major front of dark money spending, shelling out millions each year on “electioneering communication” in support of candidates it favors. The Chamber refuses to disclose its members or how much they each contribute to the funding of the organization’s vast lobbying and political influence operations. As a result, there is no way of knowing how much of the dark money the group disperses originates with foreign-connected companies.

The issue of dark money spending by foreign-influenced companies, like dark money spending in general, has been largely ignored by the corporate media. Two years ago, the Federal Election Commission fined Canadian billionaire steel magnate Barry Zekelman’s businesses nearly a million dollars for making $1.75 million in illegal campaign contributions to American First Action, a pro-Trump political action committee, in 2018. The fine was so unusual—and so large—that it received coverage in the New York Times and Newsweek. But, sadly, the FEC’s actions received more coverage in Zekelman’s home country of Canada than it did in the country whose election laws he violated.

Scant Coverage of Donations from Lobbyists for Foreign Powers

Another channel of foreign influence on our elections is campaign contributions made by foreign lobbyists.

Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), individuals or entities engaged in lobbying or advocacy for foreign interests in the United States must register with the Department of Justice, report their activities, and disclose the pay they receive. According to Open Secrets, registered foreign agents “during the 2020 election cycle made at least $8.5 million in political contributions. Another $25 million in 2020 political contributions came from lobbyists representing foreign clients, including US subsidiaries owned or controlled by foreign parent companies, registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.” In July, Ben Freeman and Nick Cleveland-Stout of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft released a brief, “Foreign Lobbying in the US,” in which they report that “in 2022 and 2023, FARA registrants reported $14.3 million in political contributions.” Even more concerning, their research shows that “authoritarian regimes represent a majority of the most active countries—including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which placed first and fourth, respectively, among the countries most engaged in political activities under FARA from 2022–23.”

Consider, for example, the political fundraising and lavish campaign spending orchestrated by Norm Coleman, former Republican Senator for Minnesota and a registered foreign agent representing the interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As Responsible Statecraft reported in 2022, Coleman and his colleagues at the law firm of Hogan Lovells have a $175,000 per month lobbying contract with Saudi Arabia. Coleman is also the founder and chairman of the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC that raised and spent some $165 million to elect Republicans to the House of Representatives in 2019–2020. So far, in the 2023–2024 cycle, the super PAC has raised approximately $131 million.

Coleman also chairs the dark money group American Action Network (AAN), a 501(c)4 “social welfare” organization that can devote some of its budget to electioneering but is not required to disclose the names of its donors. The organization describes the CLF as its “sister super PAC.” According to Responsible Statecraft, AAN—helmed by a foreign agent for Saudi Arabia—contributed some $30 million to the CLF’s pool of funds for the 2020 campaign cycle. Because AAN is not required to disclose its donors, there is no way of knowing whether some of the dark money it funneled to the CLF originated from non-US sources or not. At the very least, the arrangement is enough to arouse suspicion.

Over the past eight years, the establishment press has run perhaps a dozen articles on Saudi lobbying that contain brief allusions to Coleman’s post-Congress career as a shill for the Kingdom. He was name-checked in passing as Hogan Lovells’s “point person for Saudi work” in an October 11, 2018, New York Times article on the PR fallout from the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Coleman’s use of his “Hill contacts” to work on the Saudi’s behalf was referenced in a 2021 Washington Post report about the firms that dictators hire to clean up their images. Stunningly, however, only one of these articles, an October 21, 2018, Washington Post article on “the Saudi’s Washington influence machine,” bothered to mention that Coleman “also founded a super PAC,” but even then failed to identify the Congressional Leadership Fund by name or to mention the tens of millions it spends on electioneering. The New York Times has run a few articles discussing Coleman’s role as chair of AAN and/or the CLF. Amazingly, though, no establishment news outlet connected Coleman’s vigorous fundraising for the CLF and AAN with his advocacy work for the Saudis.

Where is the Reporting on Legislation to Limit the Influence of Foreign Money on Our Politics?

Not surprisingly, the corporate media have also consistently ignored efforts by citizens and elected officials to limit the influence of foreign money on our politics.

On April 13, 2023, the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, signed into law the Democracy for the People Act that, among other things, prohibits “any company that is five percent or more owned by multiple foreign owners, or one percent or more owned by a single foreign owner, from spending money in Minnesota state or local elections or donating money to a super PAC or other entity to spend.” The law had been pushed by a coalition of unions and civic groups called Expanding Democracy. Shortly after Walz signed the law, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce sued to invalidate the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign-influenced corporations. US District Court Judge Eric Tostrud granted a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going into effect while the Chamber of Commerce lawsuit wends its way through the courts.

Despite this, Minnesota’s law has become a model for other states. Over the summer, the Pennsylvania House passed identical legislation, and supporters of the bill marched thirty-five miles to the state capitol in Harrisburg to urge the Pennsylvania Senate to ratify the bill. In July, Ohio passed a bill that banned spending by foreign-influenced businesses and green-card holders on ballot initiative campaigns (which was subsequently blocked by a judge’s order). At the federal level, Democratic legislators in both the Senate and the House introduced the Get Foreign Money Out of US Elections Act, which would “ban firms with either 5% of foreign ownership in aggregate or 1% ownership by a single foreign entity from electoral spending.” Opinion polling suggests that strong, bipartisan majorities of voters want to prevent foreign-controlled corporations from influencing our politics.

Yet, the establishment media have, to date, not reported on legislative initiatives to limit foreign influence on US elections. Most reporting on bills like the Democracy for the People Act has come from independent, not-for-profit, and local media. If the issue of foreign dark money corrupting our elections received even a fraction of the attention that Russiagate or Trump’s bogus claims about undocumented immigrants voting illegally have, Congress and state legislatures would have no choice but to act.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Giorgia Meloni’s government will seek to raise more taxes from companies currently earning windfall profits, as Rome struggles to plug a budget deficit that has raised alarm bells in Brussels.

Italian finance minister Giancarlo Giorgetti said Thursday that the upcoming budget “will require sacrifices from everyone”. He did not clarify whether that meant increased tax rates or how they planned to avoid a repeat of last year’s failed attempt to slap banks with a levy on windfall profits.

“There will be a general call for everyone to contribute, not just banks,” Giorgetti said. “We’re all part of a country that has been called to put its accounts in order . . . and everyone must contribute.” 

He mentioned defence companies as possible targets, noting that they had been doing extremely well owing to growing conflict in the world, like Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“Paradoxically, today, one could say that with all these wars, companies that produce weapons are doing particularly well.”

Share prices of Leonardo, the state-owned Italian defence company, fell 2.56 per cent just after the minister’s comments, while bank stocks also fell slightly.  

“There won’t be a repeat of the narrative or a discussion on banks’ extra profits because at that time, banks were making extra profits,” he said in reference to last year’s surprise move put forward in August and then significantly watered down after bank shares tanked.

Italy is under intense pressure to raise additional revenues to bring its deficit — projected to be 3.8 per cent this year — down to the EU target of 3 per cent. Meloni has so far resisted to cut back on electoral promises that require extra spending, including plans to grant a €100 Christmas bonus to low income families. Her government says it is still on track to reach 3 per of GDP by 2026.

In recent weeks, government officials have held talks with banks, insurance companies and other financial companies about raising more revenues, sparking speculation that companies were under pressure to make “voluntary contributions” to public coffers. 

Giorgetti on Thursday dismissed such suggestions, saying: “Companies don’t engage in charity, so voluntary contributions don’t exist.”  

The Italian Banking Association said last week that it was evaluating “further measures that may make greater liquidity available for the state budget”.

It added that such measures should be temporary and not be applied retroactively “so as not to penalise the competitiveness of banks operating in Italy” compared with their European rivals. 

The Italian parliament is also set to approve a tax amnesty for small businesses to encourage them to declare incomes they received between 2018 and 2022 which would be taxed at a discounted rate.

Participants in the so-called “repentance scheme” will also be obliged to commit to pay a fixed amount of taxes on their expected earnings for the next two years — regardless of how much they actually earn.

Meloni has long vowed to improve the tax system, which she said this year should not “oppress families with obtuse, incomprehensible rules, and an unjust level of taxation that often does not correspond to the level of services that the state provides”.

However, critics, including members of the opposition Democratic party, have described the amnesty schemes as a reward for tax evaders and say it will incentivise further cheating. 

Analysts also warn that the measures may be poorly received in Brussels, where Italy is expected to make long-term structural changes to its taxation and spending policies rather than look for piecemeal solutions to raise revenues year by year.

Additional reporting by Giuliana Ricozzi

In a significant collaboration display, the spymasters of the United States and Britain recently co-authored an opinion piece for Financial Times. Titled “Bill Burns and Richard Moore: Intelligence Partnership Helps the U.S. and U.K. Stay Ahead in an Uncertain World,” the piece underscores the joint efforts of both spymasters in navigating the current global uncertainty and emerging threats, particularly from Russia and global terror outfits like ISIS. It also highlights the difficulties of maintaining peace and stability in the midst of multiple wars.

In their joint effort, CIA Director William Burns and MI6 Chief Richard Moore must recognize the weakening of the Western security architecture and the rapid rise of China. And the reality of the international situation is graver than their piece expresses.

A fragile security framework amid global unrest

The intelligence chiefs deliver a sobering assessment of the mounting hardships facing the world today, particularly those compounded by rapid technological advancements. They argue that the international system is now more contested than ever, with unprecedented threats necessitating global cooperation and swift action. However, while they acknowledge the dangers that lie ahead, their call for a strengthened security architecture and partnership is open to scrutiny.

Simply strengthening the existing architecture may no longer be viable given recent failures: the breakdown of European security, growing instability in Asia, the US’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the current crisis in Bangladesh. Each event has contributed to a growing wave of anti-US sentiment across several regions.

Although a strong partnership between the US and UK may work on a bilateral level, their vision of it serving as a reliable counterweight to the shifting geopolitical landscape seems overly optimistic at best. For Burns and Moore, the idea of such a partnership standing firm in the face of current global upheavals remains a distant hope.

Europe’s crumbling security net

Europe’s security architecture has been deteriorating for years. The US has experienced mounting pressure to provide a sustainable defense against the looming threats from Russia and the possible resurgence of ISIS. Despite widespread anti-Russian rhetoric across Europe, the region’s security response has been lackluster. Many European nations have failed to adequately fund their militaries. Critical arms deals, such as the pledge to supply 155mm artillery shells to Ukraine, have seen delays. Meanwhile, the US has received criticism from NATO for its military assistance to Ukraine, further straining relations.

Russia’s escalating offensive along Europe’s frontlines highlights the disjointed coordination between Europe and the US on both security and strategic fronts. The notion of preemptively halting Russia’s invasion no longer holds weight, as the post-invasion reality has seen the transatlantic alliance weaken, leading to significant setbacks for Ukraine. Even with occasional Ukrainian victories, sustaining the fight against Russia without US support appears increasingly improbable.

As the US heads into an election this November, Europe faces added uncertainty. In his campaign rhetoric, former US President Donald Trump openly criticized Europe’s failure to meet defense spending commitments, declaring that Russia can “do whatever the hell they want” about countries that don’t pull their weight. His words underscore a glaring issue: Europe’s defense sector remains outdated and underfunded, lacking the modernization necessary to confront modern threats.

On the economic front, Europe is equally strained. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi recently warned that the EU is at risk of “slow and agonising decline,” according to his scathing report. With Europe struggling to keep pace on both security and economic fronts and the US grappling with its own “American Decline,” the prospect of a strong transatlantic partnership to counter Russian aggression seems more like a political talking point than a realistic solution to bridging the deepening strategic gaps.

The US’s soft decline in Asia

The abrupt and chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 left South Asia teetering on the edge of security and humanitarian crises. Although the assassination of al-Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri in 2022 attempted to salvage some strategic credibility, it did little to mask the US’s broader challenge: its diminishing influence in the region. As China’s rise continues to reshape Asian dynamics, the US has struggled to maintain its foothold through both strategic and tactical efforts.

US-led initiatives like the Quad and the AUKUS military alliance, aimed at containing China’s growing power in the Indo-Pacific, have so far delivered underwhelming results. Australia’s maritime defense remains underfunded and underdeveloped, despite the country’s capital of Canberra being a critical frontline for AUKUS. Politically, the Quad has also struggled, with consensus-building proving elusive. Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull added to the skepticism, pointing out that the US will not exacerbate its own submarine deficit by selling vessels to Australia — a decision Canberra residents have received poorly.

Even Europe’s stance on AUKUS has been fraught with tension. The submarine deal between the US and UK sparked fears that the transatlantic relationship could be undermined. These developments highlight a stark truth: Trust and transparency in defense alliances are far more difficult to build than they appear.

A recent report by the Lowy Institute titled, “Asia Power Snapshot: China and the United States in Southeast Asia,” paints an even grimmer picture. It concluded that the US has steadily lost influence to China in Southeast Asia over the past five years across key sectors, including diplomacy, culture, defense and economics. This soft decline, coupled with alleged backdoor politics and clandestine psychological maneuvers in countries like Bangladesh, underscores the depth of America’s waning influence in South Asia. Meanwhile, the UK grapples with its own politico-economic struggles, further complicating its role in transatlantic security and broader geopolitical challenges.

Intelligence and terrorism: a new battleground

Burns and Moore have underscored the growing dangers posed by artificial intelligence in their analysis of evolving warfare tactics, particularly in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. They argue that AI has dramatically altered war-fighting techniques, with implications far beyond the current battlefields. These threats, however, are not confined to Ukraine; they are global in scope and demand collective action.

Similarly, terrorism — despite facing setbacks in recent years — has seen a quiet resurgence. The re-emergence of ISIS in Europe’s periphery, coupled with recent terror incidents in West Africa and even the Russian capital of Moscow, has forced the US to reconsider its position amid the deterioration of European security.

Both the CIA and MI6 chiefs have also pointed to sabotage operations conducted by Russia and China, taking a firm stance on countering such threats. Yet even intelligence operations face significant challenges. The US has suffered setbacks in China regarding its covert presence, while Russia’s GRU intelligence unit has orchestrated several subversive activities across Europe, such as cyberattacks against NATO and the EU. The GRU’s meddling has revealed cracks in the Western security structure.

The fragile facade of the CIA–MI6 partnership

Despite the tough rhetoric, the CIA and MI6 chiefs have publicly endorsed ideals such as “trust, openness, constructive challenge, and friendship.” They assert that these qualities will sustain the US–UK partnership well into the future, and that the relationship will continue to serve as a pillar of “global peace and security.”

However, the hard truth is that these characteristics are in constant tension. The fragility of this so-called special relationship is apparent, as it has delivered few lasting results in recent years. While such words make for polished diplomacy, both spymasters must now grapple with the uncomfortable fact: Real progress in strengthening their partnership has been slow and insufficient. It remains to be seen if their renewed efforts can finally solidify the bond that has been repeatedly tested by mounting global pressures.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.